----- Original Message ----- From: "Earnie Boyd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Keeping backward compatible/useable behaviour for > > a) Local installs from directories without setup.ini files, and > > That user must deal with those themselves.
Nice in theory. If that was truely the case I could delete an entire source file and remove some problematic logic from setup.exe. Unfortunately, last I heard we do have to support those users. > > b) packages that for (whatever) reason don't have a category. > > > > If they are required as part of the Base setup then the category is > simply Base. No. Packages without a category have either been added manually to a cached setup.ini, or have been added without a setup.hint. In either case we dont' want them appearing under the Base category - they are NOT officially sanctioned base packages that *we here* want to appear there. http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/2001-06/msg00098.html is the message where Misc is suggested by cgf. > > > Can I suggest we change the setup behavior please? > > > > Sure. You get to deal with the users though :}. > > > > That's easy, just ignore them. ;) Eventually someone will figure it out > and help those who can't. True, true. Rob
