On 30/09/2017 12:23, Andrey Repin wrote: > >> Indeed. However, while off label usage of Cygwin is anathema to me but >> sometimes I wish 'base' wasn't quite so big and have to pare things down >> a little once installed, e.g. as part of a makefile- and/or >> Eclipse-based build tree in source code control.(Which was also one of >> my motivations for the Python stuff.) > Rational suggestions are always welcome, I suppose. > While my own usage of Cygwin is prone to spread thin across all aspects of my > daily work, I can see situations, where a much smaller subset of packages > (let's name it "core" or something) would be beneficial. I.e. when packaging > Cygwin as part of your own application. > > Again, agree. A 'core' package that has enough to get a shell up (preferably dash not bash) would be very useful.
I don't believe in packaging Cygwin with an application - I'd rather say "as a prerequisite, you need to have a Cygwin installation newer than v.X" - but for build systems where you're trying (somewhat in vain sometimes I know) to attempt deterministic behaviour it would be nice to have a smaller subset upon which you could add just what's needed, usually make, grep, sed, cp, mv & rm & maybe a scripter such as awk, perl, tcl (or python!) depending upon. Anyway, it's the weekend so I'm off. Enjoy, -- Sam -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
