setup.exe different packages

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

setup.exe different packages

BGINFO4X
Hello everybody,

What is the recommende way to install ONLY one pakcage(bash for
example) with the GUI?

What I do is: All -> Uninstall , then check for the package that I
want: Base -> Bash -> Install

If I do in this manner, I obtain less packages than installing bash
from the command line with:

setup-x86.exe -g -o --no-desktop --no-shortcuts --no-startmenu
--local-install %CYGWINALOCALPACKAGES% --quiet-mode --root
%CYGWINADMINDIR% --packages bash

With the GUI I obtain 27 installed  packages, with setup-x86 command
line I obtain 56 installed packages.
I'm doing something wrong? How is this possible?

Packages installed with GUI:
_autorebase _autorebase-000478-1.tar.bz2 0
_update-info-dir _update-info-dir-01207-1.tar.bz2 0
base-cygwin base-cygwin-3.3-1.tar.bz2 0
bash bash-4.1.10-4.tar.bz2 0
coreutils coreutils-8.15-1.tar.bz2 0
cygwin cygwin-1.7.27-2.tar.bz2 0
dash dash-0.5.7-1.tar.bz2 0
gawk gawk-4.1.0-1.tar.bz2 0
grep grep-2.16-1.tar.bz2 0
gzip gzip-1.4-1.tar.bz2 0
libattr1 libattr1-2.4.46-1.tar.bz2 0
libgcc1 libgcc1-4.8.2-2.tar.bz2 0
libgmp10 libgmp10-5.1.3-1.tar.bz2 0
libgmp3 libgmp3-4.3.2-1.tar.bz2 0
libiconv2 libiconv2-1.14-2.tar.bz2 0
libintl8 libintl8-0.18.1.1-2.tar.bz2 0
libmpfr4 libmpfr4-3.1.2-1.tar.bz2 0
libncursesw10 libncursesw10-5.7-18.tar.bz2 0
libpcre0 libpcre0-8.21-2.tar.bz2 0
libpcre1 libpcre1-8.33-1.tar.bz2 0
libreadline7 libreadline7-6.1.2-3.tar.bz2 0
libstdc++6 libstdc++6-4.8.2-2.tar.bz2 0
rebase rebase-4.4.1-1.tar.bz2 0
sed sed-4.2.2-3.tar.bz2 0
terminfo terminfo-5.7_20091114-14.tar.bz2 0
texinfo texinfo-5.2-1.tar.bz2 0
tzcode tzcode-2013d-1.tar.bz2 0

Packages installed with command line:
_autorebase _autorebase-000478-1.tar.bz2 0
_update-info-dir _update-info-dir-01207-1.tar.bz2 0
alternatives alternatives-1.3.30c-10.tar.bz2 0
base-cygwin base-cygwin-3.3-1.tar.bz2 0
base-files base-files-4.1-1.tar.bz2 0
bash bash-4.1.10-4.tar.bz2 0
bzip2 bzip2-1.0.6-2.tar.bz2 0
coreutils coreutils-8.15-1.tar.bz2 0
cygutils cygutils-1.4.14-1.tar.bz2 0
cygwin cygwin-1.7.27-2.tar.bz2 0
dash dash-0.5.7-1.tar.bz2 0
diffutils diffutils-3.2-1.tar.bz2 0
dos2unix dos2unix-6.0.4-1.tar.bz2 0
editrights editrights-1.01-2.tar.bz2 0
file file-5.11-1.tar.bz2 0
findutils findutils-4.5.11-1.tar.bz2 0
gawk gawk-4.1.0-1.tar.bz2 0
grep grep-2.16-1.tar.bz2 0
groff groff-1.22.2-2.tar.bz2 0
gzip gzip-1.4-1.tar.bz2 0
ipc-utils ipc-utils-1.0-1.tar.bz2 0
less less-444-1.tar.bz2 0
libattr1 libattr1-2.4.46-1.tar.bz2 0
libbz2_1 libbz2_1-1.0.6-2.tar.bz2 0
libgcc1 libgcc1-4.8.2-2.tar.bz2 0
libgmp10 libgmp10-5.1.3-1.tar.bz2 0
libgmp3 libgmp3-4.3.2-1.tar.bz2 0
libiconv2 libiconv2-1.14-2.tar.bz2 0
libintl8 libintl8-0.18.1.1-2.tar.bz2 0
liblzma5 liblzma5-5.0.2_20110517-1.tar.bz2 0
libmpfr4 libmpfr4-3.1.2-1.tar.bz2 0
libncurses10 libncurses10-5.7-18.tar.bz2 0
libncursesw10 libncursesw10-5.7-18.tar.bz2 0
libpcre0 libpcre0-8.21-2.tar.bz2 0
libpcre1 libpcre1-8.33-1.tar.bz2 0
libpopt0 libpopt0-1.16-1.tar.bz2 0
libreadline7 libreadline7-6.1.2-3.tar.bz2 0
libstdc++6 libstdc++6-4.8.2-2.tar.bz2 0
login login-1.10-10.tar.bz2 0
man man-1.6g-2.tar.bz2 0
mintty mintty-1.1.3-1.tar.bz2 0
popt popt-1.16-1.tar.bz2 0
rebase rebase-4.4.1-1.tar.bz2 0
run run-1.3.0-1.tar.bz2 0
sed sed-4.2.2-3.tar.bz2 0
tar tar-1.26-1.tar.bz2 0
terminfo terminfo-5.7_20091114-14.tar.bz2 0
texinfo texinfo-5.2-1.tar.bz2 0
tzcode tzcode-2013d-1.tar.bz2 0
vim-minimal vim-minimal-7.4.135-1.tar.bz2 0
which which-2.20-2.tar.bz2 0
xz xz-5.0.2_20110517-1.tar.bz2 0
zlib0 zlib0-1.2.8-1.tar.bz2 0



Thanks for your time.

--
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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: setup.exe different packages

marco atzeri-4


On 28/01/2014 15:41, BGINFO4X wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> What is the recommende way to install ONLY one pakcage(bash for
> example) with the GUI?
> What I do is: All -> Uninstall , then check for the package that I
> want: Base -> Bash -> Install

better to test from scratch in an empty directory, to avoid some
remainder that could false your test.

>
> If I do in this manner, I obtain less packages than installing bash
> from the command line with:
>
> setup-x86.exe -g -o --no-desktop --no-shortcuts --no-startmenu
> --local-install %CYGWINALOCALPACKAGES% --quiet-mode --root
> %CYGWINADMINDIR% --packages bash
>
> With the GUI I obtain 27 installed  packages, with setup-x86 command
> line I obtain 56 installed packages.
> I'm doing something wrong? How is this possible?

as bash belongs to Base category and as in Base there are 29 packages
both your results look wrong as you need at least 29 packages.

$ grep "category:"  setup.ini |grep Base |wc -l
  29

I see at least an additional one:
  cygutils(Base) -> libpopt0(obsolete) -> popt(Libs)
likely there are few mores, but 56 seems too much.


> Thanks for your time.
>

Marco


--
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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: setup.exe different packages

BGINFO4X
>>

>> On 28/01/2014 15:41, BGINFO4X wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello everybody,
>>>
>>> What is the recommende way to install ONLY one pakcage(bash for
>>> example) with the GUI?
>>> What I do is: All -> Uninstall , then check for the package that I
>>> want: Base -> Bash -> Install
>>
>>
>> better to test from scratch in an empty directory, to avoid some
>> remainder that could false your test.
 I did it, and the results are diferent.
 I attach on the email both setup results: with commandline and with GUI.

>>
>>>
>>> If I do in this manner, I obtain less packages than installing bash
>>> from the command line with:
>>>
>>> setup-x86.exe -g -o --no-desktop --no-shortcuts --no-startmenu
>>> --local-install %CYGWINALOCALPACKAGES% --quiet-mode --root
>>> %CYGWINADMINDIR% --packages bash
>>>
>>> With the GUI I obtain 27 installed  packages, with setup-x86 command
>>> line I obtain 56 installed packages.
>>> I'm doing something wrong? How is this possible?
>>
>>
>> as bash belongs to Base category and as in Base there are 29 packages
>> both your results look wrong as you need at least 29 packages.
>>
>> $ grep "category:"  setup.ini |grep Base |wc -l
>>  29
>>
>> I see at least an additional one:
>>  cygutils(Base) -> libpopt0(obsolete) -> popt(Libs)
>> likely there are few mores, but 56 seems too much.
 What I'm doing is trying to install ONLY bash, not the Base category,
 so I think that you are wrong.

> Regards.
>
>>
>>> Thanks for your time.
>>>
>>
>> Marco
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>

--
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

setup.tar.gz (92K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: setup.exe different packages

Chris J. Breisch-2
In reply to this post by BGINFO4X
BGINFO4X wrote:

> Hello everybody,
>
> What is the recommende way to install ONLY one pakcage(bash for
> example) with the GUI?
>
> What I do is: All ->  Uninstall , then check for the package that I
> want: Base ->  Bash ->  Install
>
> If I do in this manner, I obtain less packages than installing bash
> from the command line with:
>
> setup-x86.exe -g -o --no-desktop --no-shortcuts --no-startmenu
> --local-install %CYGWINALOCALPACKAGES% --quiet-mode --root
> %CYGWINADMINDIR% --packages bash
>
> With the GUI I obtain 27 installed  packages, with setup-x86 command
> line I obtain 56 installed packages.
> I'm doing something wrong? How is this possible?
>
>
When you're doing it from the command line, you're getting a full base
Cygwin install. Your GUI method is only installing bash and the bash
dependencies. It looks like to me that there should be 27 packages.

I started to draw out a dependency tree, but it got to painful to type
up, and I doubt many would care. I'm surprised there's not such a thing
on the Cygwin site somewhere, but perhaps I'm just blind.


--
Chris J. Breisch

--
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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: setup.exe different packages

Achim Gratz
In reply to this post by BGINFO4X
BGINFO4X writes:
>  I did it, and the results are diferent.

Because you made it so.

>  I attach on the email both setup results: with commandline and with GUI.

So you managed to trick setup into not installing some Base packages in
the GUI.  If you wouldn't have done that, you'd have installed the exact
same packages in both cases (I've checked).

>  What I'm doing is trying to install ONLY bash, not the Base category,
>  so I think that you are wrong.

You always have to have Base installed (which already includes bash).
If you really want to create your own installer you'd first need to
understand what setup.exe is doing and why.


Regards,
Achim.
--
+<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+

SD adaptations for Waldorf Q V3.00R3 and Q+ V3.54R2:
http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#WaldorfSDada


--
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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: setup.exe different packages

BGINFO4X
> BGINFO4X writes:
>>  I did it, and the results are diferent.
>
> Because you made it so.
>
>>  I attach on the email both setup results: with commandline and with GUI.
>
> So you managed to trick setup into not installing some Base packages in
> the GUI.  If you wouldn't have done that, you'd have installed the exact
> same packages in both cases (I've checked).

On my humble opinion, If I check ONLY bash with GUI, and I use the
command-line "setup-x86.exe -g -o --no-desktop --no-shortcuts
--no-startmenu --local-install %CYGWINALOCALPACKAGES% --quiet-mode
--root %CYGWINADMINDIR% --packages bash" both results should be the
same.

Perhaps I'm wrong, and perhaps I need to understand how setup.exe
works, but perhaps both results should be the same. ins't it? :)

Thanks a lot for your time.

>>  What I'm doing is trying to install ONLY bash, not the Base category,
>>  so I think that you are wrong.
>
> You always have to have Base installed (which already includes bash).
> If you really want to create your own installer you'd first need to
> understand what setup.exe is doing and why.
>
>
> Regards,
> Achim.
> --
> +<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+
>
> SD adaptations for Waldorf Q V3.00R3 and Q+ V3.54R2:
> http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#WaldorfSDada
>
>
> --
> 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
>

--
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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: setup.exe different packages

Chris J. Breisch-2
BGINFO4X wrote:
> On my humble opinion, If I check ONLY bash with GUI, and I use the
> command-line "setup-x86.exe -g -o --no-desktop --no-shortcuts
> --no-startmenu --local-install %CYGWINALOCALPACKAGES% --quiet-mode
> --root %CYGWINADMINDIR% --packages bash" both results should be the
> same.
>

No. You told the GUI not to install the base, but only to install bash.
You didn't say the same thing when you installed it from the command
line. Perhaps if you said to remove category all first, like you did
from the GUI. I don't know. I haven't tried it, and can't at the moment.

Chris J. Breisch


--
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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: setup.exe different packages

BGINFO4X
2014-01-29 Chris J. Breisch <[hidden email]>:

> BGINFO4X wrote:
>>
>> On my humble opinion, If I check ONLY bash with GUI, and I use the
>> command-line "setup-x86.exe -g -o --no-desktop --no-shortcuts
>> --no-startmenu --local-install %CYGWINALOCALPACKAGES% --quiet-mode
>> --root %CYGWINADMINDIR% --packages bash" both results should be the
>> same.
>>
>
> No. You told the GUI not to install the base, but only to install bash. You
> didn't say the same thing when you installed it from the command line.
> Perhaps if you said to remove category all first, like you did from the GUI.
> I don't know. I haven't tried it, and can't at the moment.

So, it seems that using command line: --packages bash, selects by
default (implicit) the base category.
And in my humble opinion, "--category base" should be used instead.

Thanks a lot for your time.

> Chris J. Breisch
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>

--
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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: setup.exe different packages

Achim Gratz
In reply to this post by BGINFO4X
BGINFO4X <bginfo4x <at> kztsoftware.com> writes:
> On my humble opinion, If I check ONLY bash with GUI, and I use the
> command-line "setup-x86.exe -g -o --no-desktop --no-shortcuts
> --no-startmenu --local-install %CYGWINALOCALPACKAGES% --quiet-mode
> --root %CYGWINADMINDIR% --packages bash" both results should be the
> same.

They are, if you don't fiddle with a checkbox that you shouldn't be able to
toggle in the first place.  In other words it's a bug in the GUI that you
are able to bypass the install of some Base packages.


Regards,
Achim.


--
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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: setup.exe different packages

Chris J. Breisch-2
Achim Gratz wrote:
>
> They are, if you don't fiddle with a checkbox that you shouldn't be able to
> toggle in the first place.  In other words it's a bug in the GUI that you
> are able to bypass the install of some Base packages.
>
No, I don't agree with that statement. I'd be more inclined to believe
that it's a bug in the command-line interface that doesn't allow you to
do what the GUI does.

The default installation package selected by the GUI is by no means a
minimally useful one, and there are many reasons why one might want to
install fewer packages than it includes. Being able to do so hardly
seems like a bug.

Frankly, I was surprised the dependency tree for bash was so large. Bash
depends on texinfo? I see the chain that gets you there, but it still
surprised me.

>
> Regards,
> Achim.
>
>


--
Chris J. Breisch

--
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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: setup.exe different packages

Achim Gratz
Chris J. Breisch <chris.ml <at> breisch.org> writes:
> No, I don't agree with that statement. I'd be more inclined to believe
> that it's a bug in the command-line interface that doesn't allow you to
> do what the GUI does.

You can disagree all you want, the source of setup makes it pretty clear
that all packages in category Base must always be installed, regardless of
any other choices the user made.  And that's in fact what the GUI does too
(it goes through exactly the same code path), only that you're later able to
deselect the "binary" package without setup checking for whether you do this
on a Base package (note you can't uninstall or skip a Base package, so that
you can defeat this via other means is the bug I was talking about).


Regards,
Achim.




--
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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: setup.exe different packages

Larry Hall (Cygwin)
On 1/29/2014 11:24 AM, Achim Gratz wrote:

> Chris J. Breisch <chris.ml <at> breisch.org> writes:
>> No, I don't agree with that statement. I'd be more inclined to believe
>> that it's a bug in the command-line interface that doesn't allow you to
>> do what the GUI does.
>
> You can disagree all you want, the source of setup makes it pretty clear
> that all packages in category Base must always be installed, regardless of
> any other choices the user made.  And that's in fact what the GUI does too
> (it goes through exactly the same code path), only that you're later able to
> deselect the "binary" package without setup checking for whether you do this
> on a Base package (note you can't uninstall or skip a Base package, so that
> you can defeat this via other means is the bug I was talking about).

While I won't comment on whether this feature of the current setup is a
good one or not, it was an intentional addition meant for the power user.
It apparently is not reflected in the command line interface and shouldn't
be used as a common installation technique.  Circumventing the normal
dependency checking done by setup has the very real potential of leaving
you with a broken installation.  I believe this is the reason Achim calls
this feature a bug in setup's GUI.  If you want a working installation
and you aren't willing to deal with the problems this feature of the GUI
may present, don't use it.

I hope this explanation helps clear up the question of why there could be
a difference in the installation size depending on mode used.

--
Larry

_____________________________________________________________________

A: Yes.
 > Q: Are you sure?
 >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
 >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?

--
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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: setup.exe different packages

BGINFO4X
> On 1/29/2014 11:24 AM, Achim Gratz wrote:
>>
>> Chris J. Breisch <chris.ml <at> breisch.org> writes:
>>>
>>> No, I don't agree with that statement. I'd be more inclined to believe
>>> that it's a bug in the command-line interface that doesn't allow you to
>>> do what the GUI does.
>>
>>
>> You can disagree all you want, the source of setup makes it pretty clear
>> that all packages in category Base must always be installed, regardless of
>> any other choices the user made.  And that's in fact what the GUI does too
>> (it goes through exactly the same code path), only that you're later able
>> to
>> deselect the "binary" package without setup checking for whether you do
>> this
>> on a Base package (note you can't uninstall or skip a Base package, so
>> that
>> you can defeat this via other means is the bug I was talking about).
>
>
> While I won't comment on whether this feature of the current setup is a
> good one or not, it was an intentional addition meant for the power user.
> It apparently is not reflected in the command line interface and shouldn't
> be used as a common installation technique.  Circumventing the normal
> dependency checking done by setup has the very real potential of leaving
> you with a broken installation.  I believe this is the reason Achim calls
> this feature a bug in setup's GUI.  If you want a working installation
> and you aren't willing to deal with the problems this feature of the GUI
> may present, don't use it.
>
> I hope this explanation helps clear up the question of why there could be
> a difference in the installation size depending on mode used.

Yes, it helps.

It seems like "base category" is "like a dependency" of bash ... ,
which can be bypassed with the setupGUI.

Thanks a lot for your time.


> --
> Larry
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
>
> A: Yes.
>> Q: Are you sure?
>>> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>>>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?
>
>
> --
> 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
>

--
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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: setup.exe different packages

Larry Hall (Cygwin)
On 1/29/2014 1:10 PM, BGINFO4X wrote:

<snip>

> It seems like "base category" is "like a dependency" of bash ... ,
> which can be bypassed with the setupGUI.

Close but not quite.  "Base" is a category containing packages,
including bash, that is installed by default.

--
Larry

_____________________________________________________________________

A: Yes.
 > Q: Are you sure?
 >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
 >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?

--
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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: setup.exe different packages

marco atzeri-4
In reply to this post by Chris J. Breisch-2


On 28/01/2014 19:19, Chris J. Breisch wrote:

> BGINFO4X wrote:
>> Hello everybody,
>>
>> What is the recommende way to install ONLY one pakcage(bash for
>> example) with the GUI?
>>
>> What I do is: All ->  Uninstall , then check for the package that I
>> want: Base ->  Bash ->  Install
>>
>> If I do in this manner, I obtain less packages than installing bash
>> from the command line with:
>>
>> setup-x86.exe -g -o --no-desktop --no-shortcuts --no-startmenu
>> --local-install %CYGWINALOCALPACKAGES% --quiet-mode --root
>> %CYGWINADMINDIR% --packages bash
>>
>> With the GUI I obtain 27 installed  packages, with setup-x86 command
>> line I obtain 56 installed packages.
>> I'm doing something wrong? How is this possible?
>>
>>
> When you're doing it from the command line, you're getting a full base
> Cygwin install. Your GUI method is only installing bash and the bash
> dependencies. It looks like to me that there should be 27 packages.
>
> I started to draw out a dependency tree, but it got to painful to type
> up, and I doubt many would care. I'm surprised there's not such a thing
> on the Cygwin site somewhere, but perhaps I'm just blind.
>
>

just for the records a minimal (only base) installation from scratch
results in 52 packages.

Some of the base packages pull others that are not
in the base one, usually libs

eg: libgcc1, libintl8, ..

diffutils is pulled by xz,
bzip2, groff and less are pulled by man

Ihe curious things I notice are:

libgmp3 is pulled by coreutils and gawk
libgmp10 is pulled by libmpfr4 that is pulled by gawk

libpcre1 and libpcr0 are both pulled by grep and this look wrong,
as I see a dependency only for libpcre1.

So repackaging coreutils, gawk and adjusting grep dependency
we could go down to just 50 packages as bare minimal.

Not worth, I should say










--
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