This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: setup wishes -- any volunteers
- To: bkeener at thesoftwaresource dot com
- Subject: Re: setup wishes -- any volunteers
- From: Earnie Boyd <earnie_boyd at yahoo dot com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 10:24:48 -0500
- CC: cygwin-apps at sources dot redhat dot com
- References: <VA.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-To: cygwin-apps at sources dot redhat dot com
Brian Keener wrote:
> Charles S. Wilson wrote:
> > That's not what setup is for, altough you're welcome to use it that
> > way.
> I disagree.
> > The point: your use of setup is a 'neat thing' but is not the primary
> > purpose of the tool. However, none of the changes folks have been
> > discussing will prevent your use of the tool in that way.
> I don't know why - I can't put my finger on it but that statement really
> hurts and touched a nerve - my apologies up front
> <Getting on soapbox>
> Obviously, I missed the boat somewhere - I thought my use of setup was
> exactly the use of setup:
> To allow someone the ability to see what packages are available, to
> download them and/or install them right then or later and not have to be
> concerned with all the knowledge and commands required to do the ftp, the
> tars and so on that would be required without setup. Then also to
> provide a tool for keeping these packages updated as they should be. As
> volunteer software it does exactly what it should do and I think what it
> was designed to do.
I agree with this.
> That said do we now want to add the additional information required to
> give the inexperienced like myself the ability to know what they must
> have for the base system and then what they need if they want to use
> OpenSSH - absolutely - but you can (and I am not saying you want to)
> accomplish the same thing with an FAQ. In many cases simply displaying
> the Categories and dependencies where people could read them and select
> their packages based on them from within Setup might be enough although
> definitely not the way you would want to do it if you are trying to write
> a 'true package management tool.'.
I disagree with this. At the time a newbie uses setup s/he will most
likely not have read the FAQ. The original idea was to use the
setup.hint file so that setup could determine what else should be
downloaded for a given package. That could be accomplished either
automagically or with a hint on the setup window. I prefer
> I was only attempting to understand how either rpm or dpkg fit into the
> install or download operations in conjunction with setup. I was only
> attempting to understand how setup essentially communicates with dpkg or
> rpm to accomplish the given task. From what little I remember of rpm -
> it essentially accomplishes the task of a true package management tool
> without the use off setup.
Right on. At least a third or more of the people using Cygwin have no
idea what RPM and dpkg are. I barely know myself and to use them would
require education that I don't have time for. I would really hate for
the gzipped tarball to be replaced by .rpm :Q
> <Getting off soapbox>
> Thanks all for the additional information.
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com