This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

RE: Where is the manual to manually install Cygwin in Windows 200 0

At 09:21 AM 4/19/2002, Lawrence W. Smith wrote:

> > From: Randall R Schulz []
> > Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 2:34 AM
> > To: George Hester;
> > Subject: Re: Where is the manual to manually install Cygwin 
> > in Windiows
> > 2000
> > 
> > 
> > George,
> > 
> > I don't know what's not to like about Setup.exe (well, maybe 
> > URL-encoded 
> > mirror directory names), but you're really bucking the tide and going 
> > against the grain in trying to install without Setup.exe.
> > 
> > You'll also be told (if this message doesn't forestall it) 
> > that this list 
> > doesn't cater to problems with installation or problems 
> > originating in 
> > installation errors for people who don't use the standard 
> > installation 
> > procedure based on Setup.exe.
> > 
>He maybe bucking the tide but IMHO he does have a point of sorts:
>setup.exe has become a real mess TBH between the URL directory names,
>accumulating multiple copies of data in multiple places instead of
>the simple tree used before and the fallacy inherent in a GUI install.
>What makes for an "easy" install on one workstation ought to imply 
>ease of use on multiple workstations... it doesn't, quite the contrary,
>a simple config file based approach with a script that did the
>installing would be far, far easier. (such as make)
>As it is, it smacks of the "developer knows best" and "one size fits all"
>approaches so popular at M$ which is sad given cygwin's heritage!
>Short-sighted, misguided install philosophy aside, thanks for a wonderful
>selection of software :)

Thanks for your points.  These have been discussed before.  You can review
the discussion in the email list archive if you like.  Key points of the 
installer are that it must not be reliant on facilities that are part of 
the packages it's installing and that it must be GUI based for the masses.
That doesn't mean that these are exclusive requirements.  The goal is to 
make setup support a variety of needs.  But it needs to focus on a subset
of those requirements initially, due to resource constraints.  Anyone 
interested in seeing more progress in an area of their preference is welcome 
to join in the development of setup.  That's generally the best way to 
resolve issues with missing functionality.  I think we're all pretty clear 
on the varied needs for installation.  IMO, it's only worth discussing here 
if it's in the context of new development work to improve setup.  Any takers
on that note?

Larry Hall                    
RFK Partners, Inc.            
838 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
Holliston, MA 01746                     (508) 893-9889 - FAX

Unsubscribe info:
Bug reporting:

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]