RE: Bug in startxwin.bat after installing with setup.exe in win98SE

[Nicholas Wourms <nwourms at yahoo dot com>]

--- Robert Collins <robert.collins@syncretize.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cygwin-xfree-owner@cygwin.com 
> > [mailto:cygwin-xfree-owner@cygwin.com] On Behalf Of Nicholas Wourms
> > Sent: Sunday, 14 July 2002 11:09 AM
> > Robert,
> > 
> > I'll have none of this debian talk.  You know full well that 
> > I am working
> > very hard to get rpm-4.1 ready for inclusion into the 
> > distribution.  At
> > that point, Chuck and I will start figuring out ways to 
> > interface it with
> > setup.  Also, we will be figuring out how to best transition 
> > setup to use
> > rpms.  The point of this is that all this talk is a long way 
> > off.  I'm not
> > going to invent a new interface when others already exist.  
> > The fact of
> > the matter is, that for right now, setup is well suited to perform the
> > task at hand, which is to support all of the future X users.  
> > Like it or
> > not, there is enough of them to warrant a separate mailing list.  Lets
> > temporarily let setup do this now and then we'll replace it 
> > when something
> > better comes along.
> 
> Nicholas, no consensus has been reached for using the rpm database as
> the backend. If rpm has a similar system to the one I referenced,
> substitute rpm for dpkg in my previous comments. I *did not* suggest
> that we use dpkg as a backend for this particular thing either - I
> pointed out the best practice pattern to address the issue we are
> facing. Lets stick to that topic, shall we?

Hey, you were the one who brought up debian...

> For now, try listening, not taking the conversation off on tangents. I
> happen to have put quite a bit of effort into the Cygwin Xfree86 project
> in the past, and continue to make various contributions as and when it's
> appropriate. I strongly resent your implying that I might dislike the
> presence of the cygwin-xfree86 community - which I am a member of!

I am listening...  I don't know where you got this one from, but I respect
your membership in the Cygwin/XFree86 community.

> The simple fact is, I disagree with your proposal, and you have made no
> convincing arguments to change my mind. What you are suggesting is not
> what 'most' windows installers do, it is not flexible, it is a step
> backwards in approach, and a proper solution is not that hard to do!
> 
What you are suggesting is akin to Windows installers run batch files in
the background?  I don't think so, so why should we run shell scripts?  I
heard your point regarding the backend data-driven support, but lets be
serious, that kind of functionality is months away.  My proposal is a
short-term solution which provides the "easiest" way that people wanting
to install X can get going.  There is little harm in implimenting this
solution now, considiering that we are both working towards trying to
provide a better solution in the future.  Fine, how's this, I'll rip out
the specific references to cygwin.bat and instead have setup parse the ini
for what it should display in that last window and how many it should
display.  This is how installishield and others do it.  How's that for a
solution?

Cheers,
Nicholas

P.S. My damn keyboard is dying...  Also, do I need a debug version of
setup.exe from you or will you be satisified with output from the
non-debug version?

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes
http://autos.yahoo.com