This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

RE: WinXP installation - can't access all of the package on the Select Packages page

> So, basically, those of us who are encountering a
> show-stopper bug that prevents us from installing
> Cygwin (unless we choose to install the full version,
> which is an interesting task in itself when you can't
> see that the 3rd radio button is "Expert") have less
> to complain about then those who will experience a
> minor cosmetic issue?

Not at all.  But there's like two of you.  There's all kinds of people that
would have the "problem" described by Max.  "The needs of the many get the
grease," or words to that effect.

> That strikes me as a very strange prioritization  that
> a purely cosmetic issue would take priority over
> working around a functional bug (regardless that
> Microsoft has changed the rules).

Microsoft hasn't changed the rules, they've *broken* their *own* rules.
Furthermore, nobody here knows what the new "rules" even are, after
not-inconsiderable investigation.  Nor, as Max said, does *Microsoft* even
appear to know what they are, because thier own stuff has the same problem!

> Am I correct in understanding then that:
> a) there are no plans to deal with this bug

If a solution presents itself, it will certainly be dealt with.  It may even
magically "solve itself" as fallout from the work I'm doing on the
"resiz{able|ed} chooser" issue.

> b) those people who are experiencing this bug are
> thrown to the wolves

"Thrown to the wolves"?  I wouldn't phrase it that way.  But we're all
volunteers here.  People fix what they feel like fixing, and there are many
more-serious problems in Setup than this particular one.  And nobody really
wants to create more problems for the vast majority.

> c) this list is not interested in bugs that can't be
> fixed in an elegant manner

We wouldn't get much done if that were the case! ;-)  Your suggestion is not an
"inelegant fix" though; it's a worsening of the overall application that happens
to mitigate this one particular issue.  Now, if you can figure out a way to
enable that "worsening" only on platforms that have the problem and can supply a
patch, that would be an "inelegant fix" (or really an "inelegant workaround to
MS's defective APIs") and we'd have something.

Gary R. Van Sickle
Brewer.  Patriot.

Unsubscribe info:
Bug reporting:

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]