Re: Blocking a base package from installing
Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote: If you do set up such an explorer menu entry, it'll do whatever you tell it to. --- There is already such an addon for vim -- and it launches it from the system-standard location. Putting a copy in /usr/local won't be called. If you want to replace the main copy and all it's purposes/uses, you need to overwrite the system copy. It'll only end up "of course not" working if you "of course" configure things differently than you actually wanted to. But why would anyone do that? --- Why would you install a system copy of vim anywhere other than in the system location? To install it in /usr/local would prevent it from working normally -- why would anyone do that? Did it occur to you that the system really has to support much more varied use cases than your own particular corner case? --- Not on my system. -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Re: Blocking a base package from installing
Am 07.10.2016 um 02:07 schrieb Linda Walsh: Achim Gratz wrote: Now, that last question of yours: No, the package manager should never allow you to not install a base package. These are in category "Base" precisely so the rest of the system can rely on the functionality provided. --- And what other programs will stop functioning if vim is not installed? Vi is, for better or for worse, the default/fall-back system editor. It is assumed to be there by every useful definition of what "Unix" is. The possibilities for things breaking if it's not there are therefore almost endless. If I compile and install a version of vim on my system, why would I want to put it in a location like /usr/local where it might not be used -- all the time? Because /usr/local is the designated location for software that's not part of the organized software distribution. If you want to build your own, /usr/local is where it's supposed to go --- or $HOME if you don't have admin privileges. Unix does have a very different approach to installing programs compared to Windows, in that it collects files from various packages in a few central places: /usr/bin, /usr/etc, /etc, and so on. That approach requires consistent organization to avoid complete chaos. Distributions like Cygwin provide that organization. You mess with that at your own peril. That's why non-distribution software gets its own area to work in: /usr/local. I'm the only user on my system -- whether I run as a user or as root, or whatever, I'm not doing this for someone else. Did it occur to you that the system really has to support much more varied use cases than your own particular corner case? If I try to edit a file using 'vim' from the explorer menu, will it invoke my vim in /usr/local -- of course not. If you do set up such an explorer menu entry, it'll do whatever you tell it to. It'll only end up "of course not" working if you "of course" configure things differently than you actually wanted to. But why would anyone do that? -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Re: Blocking a base package from installing
Greetings, Linda Walsh! > Achim Gratz wrote: >> Now, that last question of yours: No, the package manager should never >> allow you to not install a base package. These are in category "Base" >> precisely so the rest of the system can rely on the functionality >> provided. [snip] > But back to the 1st Q. What other programs will fail to work > if the base-version of vim isn't installed? The question is not about vim, the question is about base category in general. It's vim only now, tomorrow it'll be something else. You have to stop and draw the line somewhere, if you, as a package maintainer, want a predictable behavior for all future installations. -- With best regards, Andrey Repin Friday, October 7, 2016 13:28:54 Sorry for my terrible english... -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Re: Blocking a base package from installing
Achim Gratz wrote: Now, that last question of yours: No, the package manager should never allow you to not install a base package. These are in category "Base" precisely so the rest of the system can rely on the functionality provided. --- And what other programs will stop functioning if vim is not installed? If I compile and install a version of vim on my system, why would I want to put it in a location like /usr/local where it might not be used -- all the time? I'm the only user on my system -- whether I run as a user or as root, or whatever, I'm not doing this for someone else. If I try to edit a file using 'vim' from the explorer menu, will it invoke my vim in /usr/local -- of course not. Installing some private copy where all the rest of the system will ignore it, is asking for headaches. How many people do you think are installing cygwin on servers to be used by many people, vs. their personal machines to only be used by them? But back to the 1st Q. What other programs will fail to work if the base-version of vim isn't installed? -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Re: Blocking a base package from installing
Linda Walsh writes: >> 1. Build a proper package and give it a higher version number than >> Cygwin's own Vim. >> >> 2. Fake the installation of vim-minimal in /etc/setup/installed.db and >> give that fake installation some high version number. > --- > Both of which are "lying" to the package manager, to get it to > NOT install an inferior (from the standpoint of not containing > the user-desired modifications/features) package. It should > be possible to "LOCK" a package (base or not), to prevent it from > being removed/updated/installed or changed by setup, no? Not really, although there is some skipping of intermediate steps involved. By building your own package you introduce a second package source (like Cygport does). The two package sources can only coexist if either the package versions are all different (note: version here includes the "build number") or the package sets are disjunct and dependencies are only present from the "second source" into the first. If you were to change the packaging of an existing package in the base package source, you'd have to provide obsolescence packages for those packages you no longer provide content for. The two suggestions just produce the end result of doing that with different amounts of not actually doing all the work that would be required (and if you break your system you get to keep the pieces). Now, that last question of yours: No, the package manager should never allow you to not install a base package. These are in category "Base" precisely so the rest of the system can rely on the functionality provided. Regards, Achim. -- +<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+ SD adaptation for Waldorf rackAttack V1.04R1: http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#WaldorfSDada -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Re: Blocking a base package from installing
Greetings, Chris Sutcliffe! > I'm using a self compiled vim, so I uninstalled vim-minimal. Every > time I run setup to get the latest updates, setup attempts to > reinstall vim-minimal - is there a way to make setup ignore > vim-minimal? Install your vim into /usr/local, should be enough for casual use. -- With best regards, Andrey Repin Thursday, October 6, 2016 21:32:30 Sorry for my terrible english... -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Re: Blocking a base package from installing
On 10/06/2016 01:22 PM, Linda Walsh wrote: > It should > be possible to "LOCK" a package (base or not), to prevent it from > being removed/updated/installed or changed by setup, no? Technically possible if someone were to write patches for it to do so. Are you volunteering? -- Eric Blake eblake redhat com+1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Blocking a base package from installing
Achim Gratz wrote: Chris Sutcliffe writes: I'm using a self compiled vim, so I uninstalled vim-minimal. Every time I run setup to get the latest updates, setup attempts to reinstall vim-minimal - is there a way to make setup ignore vim-minimal? Yes, at least two. 1. Build a proper package and give it a higher version number than Cygwin's own Vim. 2. Fake the installation of vim-minimal in /etc/setup/installed.db and give that fake installation some high version number. --- Both of which are "lying" to the package manager, to get it to NOT install an inferior (from the standpoint of not containing the user-desired modifications/features) package. It should be possible to "LOCK" a package (base or not), to prevent it from being removed/updated/installed or changed by setup, no? -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Re: Blocking a base package from installing
Chris Sutcliffe writes: > I'm using a self compiled vim, so I uninstalled vim-minimal. Every > time I run setup to get the latest updates, setup attempts to > reinstall vim-minimal - is there a way to make setup ignore > vim-minimal? Yes, at least two. 1. Build a proper package and give it a higher version number than Cygwin's own Vim. 2. Fake the installation of vim-minimal in /etc/setup/installed.db and give that fake installation some high version number. Regards, Achim. -- +<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+ Wavetables for the Waldorf Blofeld: http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#BlofeldUserWavetables -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Re: Blocking a base package from installing
Am 06.10.2016 um 16:57 schrieb Chris Sutcliffe: I'm using a self compiled vim, so I uninstalled vim-minimal. Every time I run setup to get the latest updates, setup attempts to reinstall vim-minimal - is there a way to make setup ignore vim-minimal? With the alternative being to pick a fight with the tools, wouldn't it be a whole lot more straightforward to install your own vim with --prefix $HOME or /usr/local instead? That's what I do with basically all packages I install from sources; and using stow to manage them even makes that reasonably painless. -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
