Setup 2.57 woes...
Fri Jun 1 18:19:00 GMT 2001
On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 09:03:45PM -0400, Lance Kibblewhite wrote:
>>From: Michael A. Chase
>>If you want help with your installation on this list, you should let
>>setup manage the archive files in its normal fashion. There would be
>>far too many possible variations for us to try to guess what each
>>helpee has otherwise.
>Sure, no problem. Where was that need to maintain that structure
>documented? Obviously I was taking advantage of an undocumented, and
>very useful, feature, which is now obsoleted. Again, without
Where would you expect the documentation to reside? Apparently we
missed documenting this in the setup announcement. I'm not convinced
that that would have solved any problems, though.
>>>The download directory is correct, been the same directory that setup
>>>is downloaded to. For some reasons it, just can't see the files even
>>>though they are right there in the same directory.
>>If you mean a single download directory, then it is _not_ correct
>>anymore. It looks for the files in the locations given in setup.ini.
>setup.ini details the server-side info. It is completely gratuitous
>that setup insists that it be mirrored locally.
It is not gratituitous. The setup.ini reflects the current status of
things that you've downloaded. setup.ini on mirrors will change as
we update our packages.
>>>I only use setup for download, since setup's install (or at least
>>>earlier versions) always insists on trampling over my /bin /usr/bin
>>>mounts etc, but that's another story. Manual installs are trivial
>>The FAQ describes why /bin/ and /usr/bin/ (and /lib/ and /usr/lib/)
>>need to point to the same directory. If you insist on keeping them
>>separate, you are making your installation unsupportable.
>No, that's not the problem. They are the same. but /usr/bin is
>mounted to /bin etc. Setup appears to want things the other way
>around, when it shouldn't really care. Another gratuitous decision.
Actually, setup maps /usr/bin to /bin. As far as "not caring" is
concerned, we have frequently expressed an interest in having people
help us with the programming efforts in developing setup.exe. If
you have ideas about how things should be, the most persuasive argument
you can offer is a patch to setup.exe.
>>>Has it become mandatory to use setup for install also?
>>Not completely, but it makes keeping a common directory structure both
>>in the archive cache and in the working Cygwin directories much easier
>>so it is much easier for us to guess were things are when someone asks
>>for help. The easiest way to maintain your Cygwin installation is to
>>use setup for both download and install. It does both in one call by
>>default (Install from Internet), but you can perform the two steps in
>>separate calls to setup.exe.
>Yes, I know. ein system, ein layout.
Or, if you don't like the way that setup.exe is working now, make your
own version. You don't even have to share it with anyone.
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
More information about the Cygwin