[ANN] Cygwin DEV survey

Smith, Martin martin@exchange.Scotland.NCR.COM
Mon Mar 8 06:58:00 GMT 1999

> Is it wise to change this to binary for a'development'
> > install or not?
> 8<
> NO! The preferred method is text mounts.  
Oops - fair enough, I wasn't sure :-) I guess this implies there are a few
packages out there aren't properly ported?

> What about environment variables? At the moment these are in a batch
> > file but I usually add them to my NT environment and call Bashdirectly.
> Is
> > this appropriate? What about other settings like term etc? Is thereany
> > "best" environment?
> There are reasons why the environment variables are set in the batch
> file; that being, it works on both NT and 9x.
An automated install tool (like InstallShield) should be able to detect
which OS the software is being installed on and set up the appropriate
settings for each. I take the point though that this might not cover all
cases adequately.

> I prefer this method as
> to something modifying my setup files/environment.  IMNSHO, the "best"
> environment is the default one provided by the tool.  Alternates can
> be explained and possibly somewhat automated after the installation.
> 8<
> > *	Once installed, how best to manage updates to included packages? Is
> > there any advantage to using RPM or would it be best to stick with
> > tarballs/diff/patch initially? I don't think many people are using
> any form
> > of package management on cygwin yet but perhaps this would be useful?
> 8<
> This has been discussed many times before.  I prefer the tarball
> method while others prefer the automated installation.  If you want to
> satisfy all peoples then you have to supply both methods.
[Martin]  Seems reasonable. I have RedHat Linux at home but still tend to
install a lot of stuff from tarball rather than RPM packages. 

> 8<
> > *	Would this include helper scripts like the modified "install" which
> > many packages need to cope with .exe extensions? I'm sure there have
> been a
> > few more handy scripts/wrappers on this list as well.
> 8<
> Just search the archives.
[Martin]  I didn't want them just now - I was just suggesting that the more
"essential" of these might make a useful addition to such a CD :-)

> 8<
> > *	Would/could it set up /bin, /etc mounts as well as the default ones
> > provided by Cygwin?
> 8<
> Again, this is a preference thing.  Some prefer to use symbolic links,
> some prefer to create a different directory structure altogether and
> some prefer just using mount points.  Whatever you do as a default
> will only satisfy about 1/3 (a guess) of the preferences.
[Martin]  In theory an installer could ask the user what they wanted set up
but, in practice, I agree this would probably be too much hassle. I
certainly wouldn't recommend a windows installer as a panacea for all
installation issues !

> > Anyway, that's enough from me. I certainly support this suggestion
> and think
> > it would be a good way of allowing more people to get up & running
> with the
> > Cygwin tools without having to go through the regular FAQ session
> first :-)
> 8<
> I like the idea, too.  However, it is a given that you'll never
> satisfy everyone and if you're too lazy to read do the FAQ session
> then you're going to be too lazy to read any other installation manual
> as well.  I can just hear the questions now, "I just got this CD and
> I'm trying to ...". ;^)
True, all the tools in one place sounds handy :-) And, as you say, as long
as people realise that this method of installation may not suit their
particular needs then there's no problem...


> ==
> -                        \\||//
> -------------------o0O0--Earnie--0O0o-------------------
> --                earnie_boyd@yahoo.com               --
> -- http://www.freeyellow.com/members5/gw32/index.html --
> ----------------------ooo0O--O0ooo----------------------
> PS: Newbie's, you should visit my page.

Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

More information about the Cygwin mailing list