[PATCH] setup.exe

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 06:46:00PM +0900, green fox wrote:
>On 1/21/13, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 04:03:04PM +0900, green fox wrote:
>>>On 1/20/13, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>>What *specifically* do you really like?
>>>
>>>+1 for being able to specify custom setup.ini Not a happy moment when
>>>you realize some package is missing, having spent 2 housr to distribute
>>>the blob on the network.
>>
>> If you are missing a package then sending out a new setup.ini which
>> includes the missing package should fix the problem.  I don't see how
>> being able to specify something other than setup.ini helps.
>>
>> Btw, I'm not looking for votes.  I'm looking for explanations for why
>> this option is useful.  It seems like the described functionality could
>> be handled with just a shell script wrapper.
>
>Because we do not have a decent package manager

And, that's because we don't have any "decent" developers willing to
write one.  Why haven't you stepped up?

But, anyway, you are apparently missing the point.  I'm not looking for
complaints.  I'm looking for actual reasoned arguments for why a patch
should be applied.  If you are just knee-jerk responding to someone
saying "unattended setup" then you're going to have to actually read and
understand what the patch does and indicate why it would be useful.

cgf