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]

Installation Classes for setup.exe [was RE: LibICE.DLL is a BIG problem]


Instead of bitching, all people have to do is click once on the "default"
option and it will switch to "install".  This installs everything except
the test packages.  If only people would try to figure it out a little
before complaining.  Although, I suppose eventually we'll have to get
setup to give people the option of:

1)Minimal Install (currently "default")
2)Standard Install
3)Full Install (currently ("install")
n1) [Install Type n1]
n2) [Install Type n2]

[CHECK BOX 1] Install experimental packages?
[CHECK BOX 2] Customize package selection?

[n1, n2 = additional install types to be provided by external data
sources, i.e. one could define "Standard Install w/ Cygwin/XFree86" or
"SSH only Install"]

As to what goes into #2 is not for me to debate.  I've had my fill of
flame wars for awhile ;-).  However, as more packages are added, I think
that we (including me) should help setup become more extensible by
defining the classes of installs and providing the chooser only when
requested by checkbox #2.  Why should this be something we want?

A)It makes the whole process much easier for the enduser.
B)It better mirrors other installers which the enduser is used to.
C)It is much more "accessible" to people with disabilities.
D)It creates a more featureful installer, while preserving the
  simplicity of the installer.
E)It has been marketed and tested by the various linux vendors in the
  opensource community and so far hasn't met with much disfavor.
F)(Hopefully) It will cut down on the number of messages we get from
  people asking where is package "foo" or complaing about setup
  installing too many or too few packages.
G)Personally I like to have the robustness of a full setup of tools, while
  Harold may prefer the simplicity of a minimal X terminal setup.  Then
  there are those who would rather use it simply for SSH.  Choice is an
  important feature of the opensource community, one which we should
  embrace without creating confusion.

I am simply stating an observation and a possible boilerplate for a
solution.  As to how doable this is and who will do it is another thing. 
I'll take a crack at it, but I doubt I'd get that far in the next couple
of months.  So rather than just keep the idea to myself, I decided to
share it.  Hopefully this might get some useful discussion and possibly
spawn more ideas in the process.


P.S. - Please respond in cygwin-apps, as I don't want to cause another
off-topic thread to flood cygwin-xfree.  ;-)

--- Harold Hunt <> wrote:
> Michael,
> No it is not amazing that the default Cygwin installation does not
> install
> XFree86.
> Just read the Cygwin mailing list archives and notice how often people
> bitch
> about how large the default installation is already.  The default
> installation continues to get smaller, rather than larger, as a result
> of
> all of this bitching.  Now we have reached the point where people bitch
> about there being too much just about as much as people bitch about
> there
> being too little.  Thus, we have reached a nice stable point, and we
> intend
> to stay there.
> Harold
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Jennings []
> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 1:38 AM
> To: Harold Hunt
> Subject: Re: LibICE.DLL is a BIG problem
> Amazingly, the default Cygwin install does not install XFree86. It is
> necessary to choose it. That's why there are so many problems with it
> being
> missing.
> You can see all the trouble people are having by puting
> LibICE.dll
> into Google.
> Michael
> ___________________
> Harold Hunt wrote:
> Michael,
> Because I have never heard of any problems with libICE.
> You are going to have to provide details, even if those details are only
> links to the relevant bits of discussions that you have found via
> Google.
> Thanks,
> Harold
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> []On Behalf Of Michael Jennings
> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 12:14 AM
> To:
> Subject: LibICE.DLL is a BIG problem
> There are lots of messages on Google that say people are having a
> problem with a missing DLL, LibICE.dll. No one has answered that message
> with a definitive answer. There are FTP and HTTP addresses given that
> don't lead to the file.
> I'm trying to install Nedit, and it is asking for this file.
> Why doesn't Cygwin provide everything necessary, or links, or
> explanations? Re-installing made no difference.
> Michael Jennings

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes

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