Nicholas Wourms wrote: > --- Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Nicholas Wourms >>>Sent: Sunday, 14 July 2002 11:09 AM >>>Robert, >>> >>>I'll have none of this debian talk. You know full well that >>>I am working >>>very hard to get rpm-4.1 ready for inclusion into the >>>distribution. At >>>that point, Chuck and I will start figuring out ways to >>>interface it with >>>setup. Also, we will be figuring out how to best transition >>>setup to use >>>rpms. The point of this is that all this talk is a long way >>>off. I'm not >>>going to invent a new interface when others already exist. >>>The fact of >>>the matter is, that for right now, setup is well suited to perform the >>>task at hand, which is to support all of the future X users. >>>Like it or >>>not, there is enough of them to warrant a separate mailing list. Lets >>>temporarily let setup do this now and then we'll replace it >>>when something >>>better comes along. >> >>Nicholas, no consensus has been reached for using the rpm database as >>the backend. If rpm has a similar system to the one I referenced, >>substitute rpm for dpkg in my previous comments. I *did not* suggest >>that we use dpkg as a backend for this particular thing either - I >>pointed out the best practice pattern to address the issue we are >>facing. Lets stick to that topic, shall we? > > > Hey, you were the one who brought up debian... > > >>For now, try listening, not taking the conversation off on tangents. I >>happen to have put quite a bit of effort into the Cygwin Xfree86 project >>in the past, and continue to make various contributions as and when it's >>appropriate. I strongly resent your implying that I might dislike the >>presence of the cygwin-xfree86 community - which I am a member of! > > > I am listening... I don't know where you got this one from, but I respect > your membership in the Cygwin/XFree86 community. > > >>The simple fact is, I disagree with your proposal, and you have made no >>convincing arguments to change my mind. What you are suggesting is not >>what 'most' windows installers do, it is not flexible, it is a step >>backwards in approach, and a proper solution is not that hard to do! >> > > What you are suggesting is akin to Windows installers run batch files in > the background? I don't think so, so why should we run shell scripts?
Several points here: 1- You have one setup.exe per application in the Windows world. Cygwin is actually several applications, all using the same setup.exe. 2- A couple years ago, I used Installshield. For what I remember, *there is* a script. For standard stuff (like destination directory and the like), this is just field to enter. For more complicated stuff (adding key to the registry for instance), you can write a script. With setup.exe, we have a same thing. The standard stuff are descriptions, dependencies, version,... and non standard are through scripts. Shortcuts isn't used enough to add a field in setup.ini but could be used to often enough to just hardcode it in the binary. > Fine, how's this, I'll rip out > the specific references to cygwin.bat and instead have setup parse the ini > for what it should display in that last window and how many it should > display. That's a better solution that I could settle for even if I think that too few application would use it to be worthwhile. jehan