On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 10:59:24AM -0600, Warren Young wrote: >On 5/14/2013 10:44, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>I don't think the documentation should be considered the definitive >>source for this since it is likely to change over time and the >>documentation is likely to be out of date. > >It wouldn't be too hard to take this a few steps further and completely >automate the process of building that list. Then it could be a make >target in the docs, generating an .xml fragment file that's XIncluded >into the docs somewhere. > >You'd probably have to check the fragment into CVS and periodically >regenerate it on a Cygwin system, since you probably can't build it on >a Linux box, since it depends on being able to run cygcheck. > >The generator can date the output, too: "As of May 14, 2013..."
Or, use setup.exe to check the "Base" category and find out immediately what's going to be installed. I don't see why it is important to have potentially out-of-date information listed in the documentation when you are going to be running setup.exe eventually anyway and you can get the definitive list there. If web access is really a must-have, another possibility would be to offer a category view in the cygwin package lister. Then the documentation could link to that. cgf -- 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
