NO huge packages, please!

[Randall R Schulz]

Peter,

At 10:38 2002-11-07, Peter A. Castro wrote:
> > > ...
> > >
> > > ... I'm a bit confused as to which problem we are addressing here now.
> > >
> > >--
> > >Peter A. Castro <doctor@fruitbat.org> or <Peter.Castro@oracle.com>
> > >         "Cats are just autistic Dogs" -- Dr. Tony Attwood
> >
> > ...
> >
> > While it's true that Setup does have a retry facility if something goes
> > wrong during download, it's manual: if a failure occurs during package
> > download, then when everything is done you get an alert stating that there
> > was a problem and asking if you want to retry. Then you're taken back to
> > the page of the wizard that downloads the package list and you pretty much
> > have to start over.
> >
> > Far from ideal, really.
>
>Ah, yes, I do recall seeing this.  But, I wouldn't really call this a
>re-try facility, because if 1 out of 100 packages downloaded with errors,
>the "re-try" will pull all 100 packages all over again.  A far cry from
>ideal, I'd say :) This is why I was proposing something much more
>realtime.  Such that during the download of a package, if an error
>occurs, it prompts you to re-try right there any then.  A further
>optimization would be to have a checkbox to automagicaly do a re-try up
>to a certain number of times.

Not true. Setup goes back and re-fetches the package list and re-computes 
necessary downloads. So if 1 out of 100 package retrievals failed, then 
only that one package will be fetched on the second go-around.


> > On the other hand, wget is pretty automatic and is rather persistent (and
> > customizably so) in its attempts to surmount failures during downloads, so
> > there's much to recommend it for users with links that exhibit frequent
> > failures.
>
>Except that they end up either having to craft the commands to pull only
>those package directories they really want, or pull the whole she-bang.
>Again, not ideal.  If I get time, I'll look at Setup and see what it might
>take to add this "feature" (no guarantees, though).

Well, that's what shell scripts are for, right? Personally, I have a very 
low threshold of reuse or repetition before I dash off a script to relieve 
me of "manual" effort. I just hate repeating myself!

Be sure to review Max Bowsher's recent mail about the Setup code. 
Apparently it (Setup's source) is in slight disarray with some ongoing 
enhancements in progress.


> > By the way, thanks for giving the details on altering wget's naming
> > behavior. I figured it could handle it--it's got so many options--but I 
> was
> > a little too lazy to go look it up.
>
>You're welcome :)
>
> > Randall Schulz
> > Mountain View, CA USA
>
>--
>Peter A. Castro <doctor@fruitbat.org> or <Peter.Castro@oracle.com>
>         "Cats are just autistic Dogs" -- Dr. Tony Attwood


Randall Schulz
Mountain View, CA USA


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/