Comments on Robert's category feature
Wed Jun 20 08:42:00 GMT 2001
Robert Collins wrote:
> Sure. I agree with you. The point about "installation methods" is that
> they _require_ dependencies to operate. They don't _require_ package
> categorisation. The reason they require dependencies is that you are
> specifying a list of packages that need to be installed.
And I agree with you - all true. I was just voicing what my original
thought/interpretation of where we were headed with setup. The only exception
I have to what you said is that dependencies are not a *prerequisite* to
installation methods. Each package could be coded with an installation
method(s) in setup.ini just as they could be coded with category or categories
and these could be parsed just as things are now. The true need for
dependencies comes into play when the user begins altering the initial default
selections that were made by the setup program as it then becomes necessary to
check they have not selected a conflicting package or deselected a package
needed by some other package.
I am by no means advocating that the current development process is wrong or
should be changed, I am only clarifying what I perceive the process and
different options to be.
> > On a side note as well I tried to try the dependecies logic
> > using an update
> > from cvs and Roberts sample setup.ini - I don't see anything
> > different - where
> > is the categories.
> You will need chris's updated copy of my patch before anything happens
> to the setup.exe interface. The code in CVS is just the parser, not the
> operational logic.
I think I downloaded that patch - was that the one Chris posted with the
subject 'Updated Robert Collins dependency/category patch against current CVS'
and the comment that he felt bad about changing code around your patch code and
had rerun the diffs against the current CVS. I'm currently trying to get it to
patch - my email program mucked with the CR/LF and the tabs.
More information about the Cygwin-developers