This is the mail archive of the cygwin 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: sincerely beg your help!!! for getting version 2.6.0-1

On 2017-01-17 10:25, Andrey Repin wrote:
>> installed cygwin using setup_64.exe from your website in my personal
>> pc, and provide the folder c:\program files\cygwin64
> Root directory with space or other ambiguous character may cause
> interoperability issues.
>> to our security
>> team for scanning and confirming. they will re-package using this
>> folder.
> Repackaging an installed Cygwin release may also cause issues.
> Please refer to f.e.

It's the org's problem if they want to spend a lot of time and money 
packaging a frequently updated non-Windows install process, which is a 
Unix-distro-like rolling upgrade. 
If they are taking on the role of a distro they should really be 
packaging each package install, with its dependencies, separately, 
like any other downstream, and doing their own setup.

If they were smarter, they'd just package Setup with a fixed mirror, 
or maintain their own local mirror, and package updating from that 
mirror using Setup, maybe even become and offer a public Cygwin mirror?

It's the requesters' and packagers' problems to read and understand 
the Setup process, FAQ, and postinstall scripts - probably why it 
takes 2 months - getting some random Windows package scripter to 
understand a Unix-like net install of packages and dependencies 
- and stuff that into an msi that works reliably under SCCM.

Get them to start packaging the current release and upgrades right away, 
otherwise something else may have changed by the time they start!

And they should always be packaging installs using the defaults, like 
C:\Cygwin64 not %ProgramFiles%, if they want to avoid problems with 
users running programs and scripts.

Quite a few Windows packages still want their own directory under root, 
as they prioritize their own stable approach over MS Windows approaches.
Easier for the little guys with simple products, and the big guys making 
lots of millions mainly on Windows, but lots of others go their own way.
Following "standards" is all very well, but what product manager is going 
to be able to get signoff on spending a year and $1M or more to change 
a complex working product and install process to the MS approach?
Product users don't care as long as the result works on their desktops, 
and they won't notice or pay more for a Windows logo - that only "benefits" 
the marketing department, so they should be footing the bill for making 
and testing the product conforms.

Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Problem reports:
Unsubscribe info:

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