Re: [GTG] Re: [ITP] Numeric-24.2

[Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>]

On Jan 16 14:58, Yaakov S (Cygwin Ports) wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > I'm not exactly against these categories, but I'm not sure it's already
> > worth to consider yet another categories for these groups of packages.
> > It might become interesting if the number of perl/python "sub"packages
> > grow in number.  How many of these packages do we have per these
> > languages right now?  AFAICS, 3 for perl and 2 for Python.
> 
> That's for right now.  But look at most linux distributions, and you'll
> see that they include a large number of such packages, warranting their
> own category.  My Cygwin Ports repository currently contains 90+ Perl
> modules and ~40 Python modules, and while there's not reason for all of
> them to be in a distribution, I think many are eventual candidates.
> 
> In the short term, I would like to contribute the GNOME Perl and Python
> bindings and the PyQt bindings.  This would make for a total of ~15 Perl
> and 10+ Python modules.
> 
> So based on that potential, I would like to see these categories added
> now, particularly as they are already Debian categories.

I agree, under these circumstance the Perl and Python groups seem to make
more sense.  Any other opinion on this?

However, this means we have to shuffle the groups in existing setup.hint
files a bit, isn't it?  The following packages would have to be added
to the Perl group:

  perl
  perl-libwin32
  perl-tk
  perl-win32-gui
  perl_manpages

and the following packages to the Python group:

  python
  subversion-python
  libxml2-python

Did I forget a package?


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat