setup revisit

Christopher Faylor
Fri Mar 23 17:45:00 GMT 2001

On Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 11:44:27AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>> > If the bootstrap is a separate tarball that it checks for (like it
>> > does setup.ini), then the core engine is going to stay the same for
>> > a looong time.
>> If the bootstrap is a tarball, you need tar and gzip outside that
>> anyway.  If you have that, why not just use it to install *all* the
>> tarballs?
>a) you cannot add (for example) bzip2 without changing setup - porting
>bzip2 to raw win32

I know that you are just giving an example but porting to use bz2 would
be pretty trivial these days.

>> > As far as size goes, I can look into ways to make that the bootstrap
>> > smaller - I've got some thoughts there. It's going to be a lot
>> > than a linux bootstrap environment :]
>> It went to 10% of its original size when I changed it.
>Cool. I believe I can keep the overhead within 20% of the original - by
>splitting out the bootstrap tarball and using the separate files as part
>of the download cache.

You still have cygwin conflict issues.  We used to have to say "Stop all
Cygwin programs" but, surprise, people didn't do this and were confused
on the mailing list.

At any rate, this sounds like a long-term goal for setup.exe not a short
term one.  I was hoping that someone could add some simple dependency
analysis to setup.exe and come up with some way of grouping things
by category.  That should be relatively simple compared to redoing the
entire installation to use apt or rpm.


More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list