Robert Collins wrote: > > ----- 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. >
I see, I chimed in on that thread. I didn't know though it would be a required download. Hopefully, this can be remedied in the future. > > > > 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. > Yep, Chris' experiment earlier this year proved to me that I could just stop posting on the users list to deal with other matters. I still read the posts in the digest mode, particularly if it has an interesting subject header. Earnie. _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com