This is the mail archive of the
cygwin
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Seeking a suggestion for unattended mass install procedure
- From: "Larry Hall (Cygwin)" <reply-to-list-only-lh at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 14:24:16 -0500
- Subject: Re: Seeking a suggestion for unattended mass install procedure
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5F8AAC04F9616747BC4CC0E803D5907D0C40C86D at MLBXv04 dot nih dot gov> <5277D4A0 dot 1050809 at cygwin dot com> <5F8AAC04F9616747BC4CC0E803D5907D0C40C913 at MLBXv04 dot nih dot gov> <5277DB67 dot 5050903 at cygwin dot com> <5F8AAC04F9616747BC4CC0E803D5907D0C40C962 at MLBXv04 dot nih dot gov> <5277E992 dot 8070602 at cygwin dot com> <5F8AAC04F9616747BC4CC0E803D5907D0C40CA43 at MLBXv04 dot nih dot gov>
- Reply-to: cygwin at cygwin dot com
On 11/4/2013 2:04 PM, Lavrentiev, Anton (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C] wrote:
Are you saying this won't work?
Or do you just not like it?
A little bit of both, actually. Windows CMD.EXE has an 8K limit on the command line
length, AFAICT. Even if that was not exceeded first time the package list
was created, it may easily get there on a complete re-run of the install procedure
(beginning with the manual package selection). The worst part is that it may
fail silently without setup even noticing until after the system is placed
into production (and failing because of the missing packages).
OK, you certainly don't have to accept any alternative suggested. But it
does sound to me like you're adding additional requirements that you didn't
previously state. In other words, if using "setup*.exe" once manually to
populate a download directory (or simply creating a package mirror) is
enough to get you everything you need, you can certainly verify that it's
possible to install from that directory using the script you've created.
That should be all you need for at least one iteration of your unattended
installs. If you plan to alter this process or the download directory on
a regular basis, then certainly there is some overhead in verifying the
script still works as you intend. No argument here.
--
Larry
_____________________________________________________________________
A: Yes.
> Q: Are you sure?
>> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple