Re: setup.exe development stalled?
On Thu, 2004-03-25 at 23:29, Reini Urban wrote: Robert Collins schrieb: On Sat, 2004-03-13 at 08:07, Christopher Faylor wrote: At the very least, it would be nice to get out a new release which resized correctly. I know that the current implementation isn't perfect but I wonder if it is better than the alternative of having a new user a week sending in a suggestion that the browser should be resizeable. Why don't you just release the current snapshot? Lets put it to the floor. While I'm not happy with the current UI resulting from the resizability... if a simple majority of the package maintainers are, I'll release. There, hows that? Rob -- GPG key available at: http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: setup.exe development stalled?
--- Robert Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At the very least, it would be nice to get out a new release which resized correctly. I know that the current implementation isn't perfect but I wonder if it is better than the alternative of having a new user a week sending in a suggestion that the browser should be resizeable. Why don't you just release the current snapshot? Lets put it to the floor. While I'm not happy with the current UI resulting from the resizability... if a simple majority of the package maintainers are, I'll release. I agree that the current snapshot isn't best, but neither is the current release, so I'm for getting the resizablility to end users. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
Re: setup.exe development stalled?
Robert Collins wrote: On Thu, 2004-03-25 at 23:29, Reini Urban wrote: Robert Collins schrieb: On Sat, 2004-03-13 at 08:07, Christopher Faylor wrote: At the very least, it would be nice to get out a new release which resized correctly. I know that the current implementation isn't perfect but I wonder if it is better than the alternative of having a new user a week sending in a suggestion that the browser should be resizeable. Why don't you just release the current snapshot? Lets put it to the floor. While I'm not happy with the current UI resulting from the resizability... if a simple majority of the package maintainers are, I'll release. There, hows that? Rob As I reported previously in http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-12/msg00133.html , the setup-2.418 snapshot with resizable chooser has worked well for me for months now. The only very minor inconvenient I experienced is that some screens are not as pretty when resized as they could be. So I vote for the release of that snapshot. André Bleau, Cygwin's OpenGL package maintainer. Please address all questions and problem reports about Cygwin's OpenGL package to cygwin at cygwin dot com .
Re: setup.exe development stalled?
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 09:49:08AM -0800, Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote: --- Robert Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At the very least, it would be nice to get out a new release which resized correctly. I know that the current implementation isn't perfect but I wonder if it is better than the alternative of having a new user a week sending in a suggestion that the browser should be resizeable. Why don't you just release the current snapshot? Lets put it to the floor. While I'm not happy with the current UI resulting from the resizability... if a simple majority of the package maintainers are, I'll release. I agree that the current snapshot isn't best, but neither is the current release, so I'm for getting the resizablility to end users. Ditto. cgf
Re: setup.exe development stalled?
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, Andre Bleau wrote: Robert Collins wrote: On Thu, 2004-03-25 at 23:29, Reini Urban wrote: Robert Collins schrieb: On Sat, 2004-03-13 at 08:07, Christopher Faylor wrote: At the very least, it would be nice to get out a new release which resized correctly. I know that the current implementation isn't perfect but I wonder if it is better than the alternative of having a new user a week sending in a suggestion that the browser should be resizeable. Why don't you just release the current snapshot? Lets put it to the floor. While I'm not happy with the current UI resulting from the resizability... if a simple majority of the package maintainers are, I'll release. There, hows that? Rob As I reported previously in http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-12/msg00133.html , the setup-2.418 snapshot with resizable chooser has worked well for me for months now. The only very minor inconvenient I experienced is that some screens are not as pretty when resized as they could be. So I vote for the release of that snapshot. André Bleau I've been using a self-built version of setup (CVS head + some local patches) for my local upgrades since early December, with no discernible problems. So I second André's vote. FWIW, I'd also like to submit some more changes that aren't ready for primetime, but which, I think, should be present in development snapshots. They are much less stable than the resizability patches, and I don't think it's fair to require anyone wanting a resizable setup to use a snapshot with raw and unstable functionality. Igor -- http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/ |\ _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D. '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow! I have since come to realize that being between your mentor and his route to the bathroom is a major career booster. -- Patrick Naughton
Re: setup.exe development stalled?
On Mar 29 09:49, Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote: --- Robert Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At the very least, it would be nice to get out a new release which resized correctly. I know that the current implementation isn't perfect but I wonder if it is better than the alternative of having a new user a week sending in a suggestion that the browser should be resizeable. Why don't you just release the current snapshot? Lets put it to the floor. While I'm not happy with the current UI resulting from the resizability... if a simple majority of the package maintainers are, I'll release. I agree that the current snapshot isn't best, but neither is the current release, so I'm for getting the resizablility to end users. I agree. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc.
Re: setup.exe development stalled?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If there is going to be an update of setup.exe, I'd like to add the following remark: I absolutely dislike setup.exe's habit of suggesting to create a desktop item everytime I install anything. I run an icon-free desktop, I don't want any new icons there, and I don't want to have to click this off every time. It would be respectful of setup.exe to remember my choice. You can sort of solve this by creating a shortcut to setup.exe with the --no-desktop command line parameter, which causes that option to be disabled by default. Brian
Re: setup.exe development stalled?
Robert Collins schrieb: On Sat, 2004-03-13 at 08:07, Christopher Faylor wrote: At the very least, it would be nice to get out a new release which resized correctly. I know that the current implementation isn't perfect but I wonder if it is better than the alternative of having a new user a week sending in a suggestion that the browser should be resizeable. Why don't you just release the current snapshot? Resizing works fine for most of the cases, and the simple remaining problems are no showstoppers to me. Just a few required feature enhancements. -- Reini Urban http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/home/rurban/
Re: setup.exe development stalled?
On Mar 25 13:29, Reini Urban wrote: Robert Collins schrieb: On Sat, 2004-03-13 at 08:07, Christopher Faylor wrote: At the very least, it would be nice to get out a new release which resized correctly. I know that the current implementation isn't perfect but I wonder if it is better than the alternative of having a new user a week sending in a suggestion that the browser should be resizeable. Why don't you just release the current snapshot? I second that. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc.
Re: setup.exe development stalled?
If there is going to be an update of setup.exe, I'd like to add the following remark: I absolutely dislike setup.exe's habit of suggesting to create a desktop item everytime I install anything. I run an icon-free desktop, I don't want any new icons there, and I don't want to have to click this off every time. It would be respectful of setup.exe to remember my choice. Kind regards, Thomas Wolff
Re: setup.exe development stalled?
On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 01:29:36PM +0100, Reini Urban wrote: Robert Collins schrieb: On Sat, 2004-03-13 at 08:07, Christopher Faylor wrote: At the very least, it would be nice to get out a new release which resized correctly. I know that the current implementation isn't perfect but I wonder if it is better than the alternative of having a new user a week sending in a suggestion that the browser should be resizeable. Why don't you just release the current snapshot? It's hard to see who you is in this case since Robert's name is quoted but there isn't anything else from Robert in your reply, but that was kinda my point. cgf
Re: setup.exe development stalled?
Christopher Faylor wrote: It seems like development for setup.exe is sort of stalled. I agree completely. At the very least, it would be nice to get out a new release which resized correctly. I know that the current implementation isn't perfect but I wonder if it is better than the alternative of having a new user a week sending in a suggestion that the browser should be resizeable. Can we release setup.exe as is and maybe think about revitalizing development somehow? It would be nice if all of the things that the parser understands were actually understand by the rest of the program. I would like to see this very much and think it is a wise decision. In six days there has been zero discussion of this. Does that mean that setup.exe maintainership is up for grabs? If so, I've got things that I need to start doing with setup.exe, so I would be very interested in taking responsibility for setup.exe. I have the time for it now as well, and a project I am working on will really need setup.exe to be more robust and reliable (such as not blindly and silently unpacking files to mount points that do not point to physical disk locations). I'll start working on setup.exe next week and see how the maintainership question develops. Harold
Re: setup.exe development stalled?
Harold L Hunt II wrote: In six days there has been zero discussion of this. Does that mean that setup.exe maintainership is up for grabs? If so, I've got things that I need to start doing with setup.exe, so I would be very interested in taking responsibility for setup.exe. I have the time for it now as well, and a project I am working on will really need setup.exe to be more robust and reliable (such as not blindly and silently unpacking files to mount points that do not point to physical disk locations). I'll start working on setup.exe next week and see how the maintainership question develops. My own suggestion would be to switch to NSIS to do initial Cygwin setup, then use something standard like apt or rpm once the initial setup is done. Cygwin having its own installer is not a very good use of resources. -- Joe Buehler
Re: setup.exe development stalled?
On Fri, 2004-03-19 at 05:33, Harold L Hunt II wrote: Christopher Faylor wrote: It seems like development for setup.exe is sort of stalled. I agree completely. At the very least, it would be nice to get out a new release which resized correctly. I know that the current implementation isn't perfect but I wonder if it is better than the alternative of having a new user a week sending in a suggestion that the browser should be resizeable. Can we release setup.exe as is and maybe think about revitalizing development somehow? It would be nice if all of the things that the parser understands were actually understand by the rest of the program. I would like to see this very much and think it is a wise decision. In six days there has been zero discussion of this. Does that mean that setup.exe maintainership is up for grabs? If so, I've got things that I need to start doing with setup.exe, so I would be very interested in taking responsibility for setup.exe. I have the time for it now as well, and a project I am working on will really need setup.exe to be more robust and reliable (such as not blindly and silently unpacking files to mount points that do not point to physical disk locations). I'll start working on setup.exe next week and see how the maintainership question develops. The 6 days means that I'm in the middle of changing jobs. Starting April I have a new job with (hopefully) more personal time to do things like setup.exe. I don't consider the maintainership up for grabs - but please do start work on setup.exe, I'll happily review patches we have 3 folk with commit access who can commit. Assuming your patches are of high quality, there is no reason that you can't get commit rights in the future too. Rob -- GPG key available at: http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
