This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: The state of setup
- From: Igor Pechtchanski <pechtcha at cs dot nyu dot edu>
- To: Max Bowsher <maxb at ukf dot net>
- Cc: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 22:03:35 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: The state of setup
- Reply-to: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, Max Bowsher wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 07:00:30PM -0000, Max Bowsher wrote:
> >> Number of problems? Yes, its bad that HEAD has regressed since the
> >> last release, and there have been the occasional issue reported, but
> >> beyond that?
> Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > Off the top of my head, there seem to be consistent complaints about
> > window size,
> Yes. Unfortunately the way setup is written makes it very tricky to
> implement resizability.
> Gary's patch statically enlarges the chooser - however, that only raises
> another issue - it would make setup unusable for people running 640x480. Are
> there any?
I believe I suggested sometime last year having chooser pages of multiple
static sizes and selecting one depending on the screen size. I could, of
course, submit a patch for this, but Gary mentioned that a truly
resizeable chooser is not far away, IIRC, so I won't bother, I guess.
> > the consistent complaints that people have apparently
> > "installed everything" but not been able to subsequently run programs,
> That would be ntsec. I think your ntsec:nostrict would be a good idea -
> that, or turn ntsec off again by default.
Or incorporate Pierre's patch? ;-)
> > the occasional NULL pointer dereference report,
> I'm fairly sure those are gone. Certainly haven't seen one recently.
> > the problem where an aborted package download seems to confuse setup.
> Don't remember this one?
Was that the one where an incorrect checksum on updating wouldn't stop
setup from uninstalling the old version, and then leave it unable to
install the new one? There was a patch for that, I think.
> > There are little things like a help button, or more words at the end
> > of installation like "Documenation is located here...".
> Hmm - a 'Finished' page. Gary's patch adds one. Maybe some more words should
> go on it.
> > setup is ok as it stands now but, IMO, it is just ok. I'd love to see
> > active development and more snapshots being generated for people to
> > try
> If it would be helpful, and you don't mind giving me scp access, I can
> upload HEAD snapshots.
> Of course, that doesn't help unless there's active development.
FWIW, I'm working on a patch to allow dependences between postinstall
scripts. These would perforce have to be separate from package
dependences, unless we want to constrain the number [to one] and the names
[to same as package] of the postinstall scripts in a package. What I'm
thinking is that a postinstall script will have a specially formatted
comment line (after the '#!' one) that would list the postinstall scripts
that have to be run before the current one.
|\ _,,,---,,_ pechtcha at cs dot nyu dot edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ igor at watson dot ibm dot com
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
Oh, boy, virtual memory! Now I'm gonna make myself a really *big* RAMdisk!