RE: Bug in startxwin.bat after installing with setup.exe in win98SE

["Robert Collins" <robert dot collins at syncretize dot net>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicholas Wourms [mailto:nwourms@yahoo.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, 14 July 2002 11:19 AM
> To: Robert Collins; 'Jehan Bing'

> > The above is an argument for the creation of the shortcut, not for
> > setup.exe creating it.
> > 
> 
> Why should setup be more generic?  

For flexability to the maintainers, to make it easier to maintain, to
make it of more use to the community.

> Why shouldn't it create 
> the shortcuts? 

It could, via interpreting some data file, or in association with a post
install script. I even pointed the way towards this with my reference to
another data driven system, but got rewarded by being told that 'you'
won't have any 'debian' talk. You can close your mind to the lessons
learnt by the most flexible open source distribution in existence if you
choose... I choose to learn some of the lessons.

> Why not reuse the exisiting code and then remove it when 
> something better
> comes along?  

Because
A) a solution has already been posted.
B) I've been trying to get the existing code removed for ages - because
better things already exist.
C) Special cases make code maintenance much much harder.

> Why do you want to remove more stuff from 
> setup.exe when you
> haven't anything to replace it with?  

? I don't follow.

> I've noticed that all 
> these shell
> scripts flying by at the end pushes the stability of windows. 
>  I've had a
> few BSODs during their execution.  

Then you have found YA bug in windows. BSOD's cannot get caused by user
programs except where MS or a driver coder have made mistakes. 

> I think all this talk of making
> setup.exe smaller is rubbish, it is only ~200KB for the love of God. 

That's the binary size, and it's fine. 

> Again the whole idea is to use the tools at hand, which in 
> this case is
> setup.exe.  Why not leverage it for all it is worth?  Why 
> rely on shell
> scripts when you have something more dependable?

Because shell scripts allow modular changes to be made without affecting
the rest of the distribution. 

Rob