This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?
- From: Rick Rankin <rick_rankin at yahoo dot com>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 10:00:51 -0800 (PST)
- Subject: Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?
--- Corinna Vinschen <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 07:34:30PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 09:42:19AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> > >On Sat, 2003-02-15 at 08:59, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > >>I suppose so, but, again, it seems like many people *recently* are
> > >>unaware of the setup program entirely.
> > >
> > >Hmm, I think we should add a new screen to setup.exe.
> > >
> > >After the install completes..
> > >
> > >"Your cygwin install is now ready to use. Please run setup.exe again
> > >if you want to Install new packages, Remove installed packages, or
> > >Update your install with the latest versions of your installed
> > >packages."
> > I like it. Apparently it is extremely confusing to many people that
> > "setup.exe" again is how you update your system, Microsoft conventions not
> > withstanding.
> So... hey, why is it called "setup"? Isn't it, in the first place the
> "Cygwin Package Manager"? "cpm"? Even the suffix of the archive files
> could be cpm...
Ahh, CP/M -- now *those* were the days... ;-)
Anyway, I like the idea of calling it something akin to "package manager". The
name "setup" seems to imply a one-time action. Although, if the name were
changed to, say, "Cygwin Package Manager" as suggested, there might have to be
some additional verbage to explain to first-time users that you use the package
manager to do both the initial install *and* subsequent updates.
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html