This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-apps@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Dependency checking change...
On Thu, 5 May 2005, Brian Dessent wrote:
> Larry Hall wrote:
>
> > I think there is value in the flexibility. I would suggest that
> > the default action would add the required dependencies. Anyone who
> > wants the broken dependencies certainly has the sophistication to understand
> > that an extra step or two is required to make this happen. But I see no
> > reason this can't be part of the GUI, perhaps under an "Advanced" button
> > or something. That should allow newbies not to trip up and break an
> > installation while it allows seasoned/knowledgeable users that want to pull
> > in only certain packages the freedom to do so. This compromise is probably
> > quite obvious to everyone but since I originally brought up the issue
> > suggesting that there shouldn't be a way to make broken installations, I
> > thought I should chime in to say that I think the ability to create broken
> > installs is OK so long as it's guarded.
>
> Okay, how about this scenario:
>
> Remove the checkbox; add a button that says "Select these now
> (Recommended)". When you press it the packages are selected and the
> contents of the text box are replaced with the status of those changes
> (e.g. "selecting foomatic-1.2.3-1..." but the wizard stays on the same
> page.
>
> If a user just presses Next, they get a popup saying "You should really
> install these before continuing, do you want me to do that?
> Y/N/Cancel" Yes would apply and move on to installation. Cancel would
> dismiss the popup and leave them at the same wizard page with no
> change. No would present a second popup saying "Are you really sure you
> want to continue without selecting? Y/N" to eliminate the chance of a
> user in a hurry selecting the wrong thing.
One more popup, and I guess we might as well just eliminate the "No"
choice unless in expert mode... :-)
> If started with --expert the behavior would be the same, except no
> popups. If you press next without pressing "Select these now" you get
> exactly what you selected without setup getting in your way.
>
> That would seem to give all the desired behaviors. However, I'm not
> sure if the three-way messagebox (Y/N/Cancel) would be confusing or
> not. A user might think "cancel" would abort the program, for example.
> I guess that would depend on how well it's worded.
Am I wrong in understanding that Windows allows you to change the labels
of all 3 buttons? In that case, you could just use "Return to selection"
instead of "Cancel"...
Igor
--
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
|\ _,,,---,,_ pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ igor@watson.ibm.com
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
"The Sun will pass between the Earth and the Moon tonight for a total
Lunar eclipse..." -- WCBS Radio Newsbrief, Oct 27 2004, 12:01 pm EDT