On Jan 22 01:02, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 08:02:41PM -0500, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote: > >On 1/21/2014 7:44 PM, Warren Young wrote: > >> Alternate idea: > >> > >> If all of the changes requested on the previous screen are "Uninstall" > >> (i.e. > >> everything else is "Keep" or "Skip"), invert the current dependency tree > >> walking logic. That is, have setup.exe find out which packages must be > >> removed to satisfy the changes requested on the previous screen. > >> > >> "Look, buddy, if you remove that package, I gotta remove these 84 other > >> packages, too: {foo, bar, baz...} Are you really really sure you want me > >> to > >> do that?" > > > >Yes, this is a known limitation of the current setup source. It falls > >under category of http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#SHTDI. After all, it sounds > >like fun, right? ;-) > > I think Corinna mentioned that she was going to get to this next > Thursday or possibly I'm misremembering and she was going to complete > work on an AI which passed the Turing Test. I can't, for the life of > me, remember which it was. Or maybe she was going to get help her > neighbor shampoo their cat? That may have been it.
Actually I'm working on a method to get rid of /etc/passwd and /etc/group. I have a partially working implementation now, which generates passwd and group entries by fetching the infos from Windows on the fly, compatible to the uids/gids and user/group names to SFU/Interix. It's already working nicely, but it's still lacking if you try to do stuff like chmod or chown or, FWIW, ssh into the machine. It's still a lot to do. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
pgpLmqIZ3U0TM.pgp
Description: PGP signature