Re: setup alternatives (was Re: Bespoke installations: simple elegance of setup.exe when setup.ini is absent)
Christopher Faylor cgf-no-personal-reply-please at cygwin.com writes: On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 03:04:24AM -0400, Arturus Magi wrote: Jani Tiainen wrote: Why to reinvent wheel..? You could use existing systems, like Debian package-system (deb), RPM-system like Fedora Core/RedHat, or Gentoo's Emerge. I also seem to recall someone using apt-get in Cygwin-space at one time, but Google doesn't want to be my friend today. When I asked for alternatives I was thinking that maybe anyone who had to use a screen reader would have a suggestion for software that was more accessible than cygwin's setup.exe. So far, I haven't seen any suggestions which take that into account. cgf YaST from SUSE is now GPL and handles dependencies quite well, the reason I mention it is that as an alternative to the more normal 'pretty' gui it also has a text mode gui-ish interface which may work better with a screen reader/magnifier. Bill -- ___ oo // \\ De Chelonian Mobile (_,\/ \_/ \ TortoiseSVN \ \_/_\_/The coolest Interface to (Sub)Version Control /_/ \_\ http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: setup alternatives (was Re: Bespoke installations: simple elegance of setup.exe when setup.ini is absent)
Bill Hughes wrote: YaST from SUSE is now GPL and handles dependencies quite well, the reason I mention it is that as an alternative to the more normal 'pretty' gui it also has a text mode gui-ish interface which may work better with a screen reader/magnifier. I think that as long as we stick to standard controls and follow the normal accessability guidelines, it will work fine with a screen reader. The problem we have now is that the main package selection widget is a home grown control that paints itself (so it can't be read by other programs) and doesn't take keyboard input. Brian -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: setup alternatives (was Re: Bespoke installations: simple elegance of setup.exe when setup.ini is absent)
Is there a cygwin port for this yast which will install cygwin packages? I should point out that some of the controlls in setup.exe work. The initial buttons for selecting install from internet, the next and back buttons, the finnish button. It's really the main points of setup.exe that don't work. The button which toggles all and the other categories and the multi-state toggles for individual packages as well as the listview of packages itself. The final checkboxes for create icon on desktop and create icon on startmenu do not obtain focus when hitting the tab key. - Original Message - From: Brian Dessent [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: cygwin@cygwin.com Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 5:42 AM Subject: Re: setup alternatives (was Re: Bespoke installations: simple elegance of setup.exe when setup.ini is absent) Bill Hughes wrote: YaST from SUSE is now GPL and handles dependencies quite well, the reason I mention it is that as an alternative to the more normal 'pretty' gui it also has a text mode gui-ish interface which may work better with a screen reader/magnifier. I think that as long as we stick to standard controls and follow the normal accessability guidelines, it will work fine with a screen reader. The problem we have now is that the main package selection widget is a home grown control that paints itself (so it can't be read by other programs) and doesn't take keyboard input. Brian -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: setup alternatives (was Re: Bespoke installations: simple elegance of setup.exe when setup.ini is absent)
Sean McMahon wrote: Is there a cygwin port for this yast which will install cygwin packages? I No. should point out that some of the controlls in setup.exe work. The initial buttons for selecting install from internet, the next and back buttons, the finnish button. It's really the main points of setup.exe that don't work. The button which toggles all and the other categories and the multi-state toggles for individual packages as well as the listview of packages itself. The final checkboxes for create icon on desktop and create icon on startmenu do not obtain focus when hitting the tab key. Indeed. Setup uses standard controls for just about everything _except_ for the package selection area, which sadly is probably the most important widget of the whole program. I eventually plan to rectify this, but no guarantees on a timeframe. Brian -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Bespoke installations: simple elegance of setup.exe when setup.ini is absent
Christopher Faylor wrote: On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 12:57:03AM +0100, Cliff Hones wrote: Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: ... [Yet more boring vitriolic rubbish.] ... I've been on this list for a good four years now, and never ever considered setting up a filter. I came close during the fortune flamewars and I'm getting even more close now. Please, Gary and CGF, can you take your discussion offline. Sorry, Cliff. You're right. I'll stop now. I was having fun but it was at the expense of the cygwin mailing list. There really is no place to take this off-line since Gary has adamantly vetoed the idea of personal email. I guess the cygwin-talk list is an option but there's no reason to bore people over there either. So, I'll stop now. My apologies to the cygwin list. Oh. No apologies please...This thread has been very entertainingand yes, a few threads ago too. Cygwin really is the best mailing list. :) -- Carlo Florendo Astra Philippines Inc. www.astra.ph -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: setup alternatives (was Re: Bespoke installations: simple elegance of setup.exe when setup.ini is absent)
Jani Tiainen wrote: Why to reinvent wheel..? You could use existing systems, like Debian package-system (deb), RPM-system like Fedora Core/RedHat, or Gentoo's Emerge. I also seem to recall someone using apt-get in Cygwin-space at one time, but Google doesn't want to be my friend today. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: setup alternatives (was Re: Bespoke installations: simple elegance of setup.exe when setup.ini is absent)
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 03:04:24AM -0400, Arturus Magi wrote: Jani Tiainen wrote: Why to reinvent wheel..? You could use existing systems, like Debian package-system (deb), RPM-system like Fedora Core/RedHat, or Gentoo's Emerge. I also seem to recall someone using apt-get in Cygwin-space at one time, but Google doesn't want to be my friend today. When I asked for alternatives I was thinking that maybe anyone who had to use a screen reader would have a suggestion for software that was more accessible than cygwin's setup.exe. So far, I haven't seen any suggestions which take that into account. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: setup alternatives (was Re: Bespoke installations: simple elegance of setup.exe when setup.ini is absent)
James Renton wrote: What about http://sourceforge.net/projects/wix/? There are very many installer builders for windows, but none that I have seen manage many independently updated packages with interdependencies, in the way that our current setup does. Max. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 4:39 PM To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: setup alternatives (was Re: Bespoke installations: simple elegance of setup.exe when setup.ini is absent) On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 12:57:18PM -0700, Sean McMahon wrote: I for one appreciate the clarification as I sent a detailed bug-report to this person assuming they were the maintainer. My question as I've asked before is, can or is someone working on improving accessibility of setup.exe for those of us who have to use windows via a screenreader and keyboard. Many of the buttons and controlls do not get focus and can't be opperated in the normal manner. Did you happen to follow the setup.exe sucks thread over in cygwin-apps? Basically, it boils down to the fact that I and others are not really thrilled with setup.exe in its current form. While it is an impressive program in some ways, the UI is (apparently) too non-intuitive and the mean-time between bug fixes is too long. Are you aware of a setup-like program out there which gets it right as far as UI is concerned? It would be nice to transition to an open-sources alternative which was actively supported. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Bespoke installations: simple elegance of setup.exe when setup.ini is absent
Original Message From: Cliff Hones Sent: 03 May 2005 00:57 Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: ... [Yet more boring vitriolic rubbish.] ... I've been on this list for a good four years now, and never ever considered setting up a filter. I came close during the fortune flamewars and I'm getting even more close now. Please, Gary and CGF, can you take your discussion offline. -- Cliff Surely you meant to say TITTTL! TITTTL! TITTTL!bock-bock-b'gwk! did you not? cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: setup alternatives (was Re: Bespoke installations: simple elegance of setup.exe when setup.ini is absent)
Max Bowsher kirjoitti: James Renton wrote: What about http://sourceforge.net/projects/wix/? There are very many installer builders for windows, but none that I have seen manage many independently updated packages with interdependencies, in the way that our current setup does. Max. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 4:39 PM To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: setup alternatives (was Re: Bespoke installations: simple elegance of setup.exe when setup.ini is absent) On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 12:57:18PM -0700, Sean McMahon wrote: I for one appreciate the clarification as I sent a detailed bug-report to this person assuming they were the maintainer. My question as I've asked before is, can or is someone working on improving accessibility of setup.exe for those of us who have to use windows via a screenreader and keyboard. Many of the buttons and controlls do not get focus and can't be opperated in the normal manner. Did you happen to follow the setup.exe sucks thread over in cygwin-apps? Basically, it boils down to the fact that I and others are not really thrilled with setup.exe in its current form. While it is an impressive program in some ways, the UI is (apparently) too non-intuitive and the mean-time between bug fixes is too long. Are you aware of a setup-like program out there which gets it right as far as UI is concerned? It would be nice to transition to an open-sources alternative which was actively supported. cgf Why to reinvent wheel..? You could use existing systems, like Debian package-system (deb), RPM-system like Fedora Core/RedHat, or Gentoo's Emerge. All working, proven technologies. Most setups in Windows works in complete package way. (For some reason or another), so you really are used to install everything, or at least very large packages. You don't have such a finegrained control over installation as Linux distributions tend to have... -- Jani Tiainen -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: setup alternatives (was Re: Bespoke installations: simple elegance of setup.exe when setup.ini is absent)
Jani Tiainen wrote: Why to reinvent wheel..? You could use existing systems, like Debian package-system (deb), RPM-system like Fedora Core/RedHat, or Gentoo's Emerge. All working, proven technologies. Would you like to have a go at porting one of them to Windows, then? Also, what about a GUI? I would very much like to see an RPM or DEB based Cygwin, but I've never had a suitably large chunk of free time to devote to such an undertaking. I recently tried to get rpm-4.4.1 working on Cygwin, but although it compiled, it segfaulted immediately on startup. Of course, really we would need a native Windows port, which would be even harder. Max. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: setup alternatives (was Re: Bespoke installations: simple elegance of setup.exe when setup.ini is absent)
Max Bowsher kirjoitti: Jani Tiainen wrote: Why to reinvent wheel..? You could use existing systems, like Debian package-system (deb), RPM-system like Fedora Core/RedHat, or Gentoo's Emerge. All working, proven technologies. Would you like to have a go at porting one of them to Windows, then? Sorry to say but I'm too busy with my current Planner porting (and enhancing). And I use less and less cygwin every day. Also, what about a GUI? I'm not familiar with RPM thingies, but I know that there exists GUI's for them. For DEB there is of course aptitude (curses-based) and at least Synaptic , GTK+ based. I would very much like to see an RPM or DEB based Cygwin, but I've never had a suitably large chunk of free time to devote to such an undertaking. I recently tried to get rpm-4.4.1 working on Cygwin, but although it compiled, it segfaulted immediately on startup. Of course, really we would need a native Windows port, which would be even harder. In my experience porting GTK+ is pretty easy, if lucky it goes without real pain... I think that one of the feasible could be some GUI + needed packages to put up in single setupfile.. (similiar to net install images for Linux distros). After that it launches GUI and let user to select rest of packages. -- Jani Tiainen -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Bespoke installations: simple elegance of setup.exe when setup.ini is absent
I for one appreciate the clarification as I sent a detailed bug-report to this person assuming they were the maintainer. My question as I've asked before is, can or is someone working on improving accessibility of setup.exe for those of us who have to use windows via a screenreader and keyboard. Many of the buttons and controlls do not get focus and can't be opperated in the normal manner. - Original Message - From: Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: cygwin@cygwin.com Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 9:37 PM Subject: Re: Bespoke installations: simple elegance of setup.exe when setup.ini is absent On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 09:21:08PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: Chris, why are you doing this to yourself? Come on, GRVS. You know the answer to that! It's fun! I'm also doing it to help you, as I have repeatedly stated. You now have the outlet you've been craving for almost two years. I'm sure this has finally gotten your blood pumping after years of non-response from me. Also, if you must know, I'm getting something out of this, too. I've got a wicked cold and am confined to the house for a few days. As somebody falsely accused of dishonesty by you, Chris, how could I not mind it? I don't like being falsely accused of lying any more than you like being rightfully accused of making uncalled-for rude comments. po-tayt-o/po-tatt-o I impatiently await your public explanation, if not retraction, if not apology, for this disturbing new low in your behavior in this forum. I think I see where you're trying to lead this. Let me see if I can clarify. Yes, you did contribute code and so you are historically responsible for pieces of setup.exe (unless they've been rewritten by now, which is doubtful, I guess). You are not, however, responsible for actively maintaining or supporting setup.exe currently. A casual reader of this mailing list might have been led to believe that you were somehow responsible for setup.exe as in the I have a problem will you help me with it sense. So, I stepped in to clarify. It's difficult to say (although we can certainly guess) which definition of responsible you were talking about so please take the keeping you honest comment as trying to make you communicate a little more clearly. I certainly was not intending to imply that you were some vile, loathsome committer of falsehoods. I'm sorry that you took it that way. But, if you stop to think about it, if I was really doing something like that then, with my awful email style, wouldn't it be more likely that I'd say something like: In what way would you think that you could possibly be considered to be responsible for setup.exe? You haven't contributed anything to the project in some time. I can't see any useful reason for you to be representing yourself in this matter. This message does nothing to advance this discussion. ? Instead, I was trying to emulate your lighthearted, playful style. Apparently, I didn't emulate you as well as I thought since surely, if I had, you would have been instructed by my response just as you continually try to lead me towards the light with all of your thoughtful, humorous (if slightly repetitive) missives. I guess my ham-fistedness touched a nerve and so does rate another apology. I am sorry that I could not properly emulate your style so as to make my intent clearer to you. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Bespoke installations: simple elegance of setup.exe when setup.ini is absent
Hi Sean, I'm redirecting this to the cygwin list so that we may all benefit: Is there any effort towards making setup.exe accessible? Not to my knowledge, no, which FWIW I find very unfortunate. Those of us who use a screen reading program and/or keyboard access find it impossible to use setup.exe without assistance. The view button should activate with the spacebar or enter key and does not. The view button when activated with the space bar should open up a list of packages and does not. Each item in the list should be a multistate toggle which should be toggled with the spacebar. Look at the windows installation program to see what I'm talking about. In the section which allows you to choose accessories for example there is a button you can hit enter or spacebar on which says details. From there you are in a list of programs you can select or deselect with the spacebar. This is how setup.exe should behave. There are many problems with setup, hence my comment. The unfortunate truth is that setup development has historically been excruciatingly slow, and I have no reason to believe that the level of activity will increase by any appreciable extent in the forseeable future. I know it may come as small comfort, but it used to be worse. If you are able to, I am certain that any effort you can lend to the development of setup will be appreciated. -- Gary R. Van Sickle - Original Message - From: Gary R. Van Sickle [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: cygwin@cygwin.com Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 6:58 PM Subject: RE: Bespoke installations: simple elegance of setup.exe when setup.ini is absent [snip] Ahem. As one of the many people responsible for setup, I take issue with the accusation that it is either simple or elegant. ;-) -- Gary R. Van Sickle -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Bespoke installations: simple elegance of setup.exe when setup.ini is absent
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sean McMahon Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 2:57 PM To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Bespoke installations: simple elegance of setup.exe when setup.ini is absent I for one appreciate the clarification as I sent a detailed bug-report to this person assuming they were the maintainer. Hi Sean, A couple of things: - One should never send any project-related questions directly to a maintainer. The mailing lists exist so that the entire community may all benefit from the questions and answers asked there. - I have never been the setup maintainer, nor have I ever claimed to be (in public or private), nor have I ever attempted to imply that I was. - I am responsible for a good portion of setup's UI. It used to be a series of dialog boxes. It is now a Wizard-style UI. I did that. - I am glad that Chris' comments clarified that. Let us all hope that he applies this helpful service across the board, and not just for those who call him on his often bizarre behavior here. Well, except for the false accusations of dishonesty part, I don't think that's very helpful to anybody. My question as I've asked before is, can or is someone working on improving accessibility of setup.exe for those of us who have to use windows via a screenreader and keyboard. Many of the buttons and controlls do not get focus and can't be opperated in the normal manner. As I hopefully addressed in my response to you, to the best of my knowledge nobody is working on this. As to the question of can, the answer there is a most resounding yes. There's plenty that needs doing in setup. -- Gary R. Van Sickle - Original Message - From: Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: cygwin@cygwin.com Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 9:37 PM Subject: Re: Bespoke installations: simple elegance of setup.exe when setup.ini is absent On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 09:21:08PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: Chris, why are you doing this to yourself? Come on, GRVS. You know the answer to that! It's fun! I'm also doing it to help you, as I have repeatedly stated. You now have the outlet you've been craving for almost two years. I'm sure this has finally gotten your blood pumping after years of non-response from me. Also, if you must know, I'm getting something out of this, too. I've got a wicked cold and am confined to the house for a few days. As somebody falsely accused of dishonesty by you, Chris, how could I not mind it? I don't like being falsely accused of lying any more than you like being rightfully accused of making uncalled-for rude comments. po-tayt-o/po-tatt-o I impatiently await your public explanation, if not retraction, if not apology, for this disturbing new low in your behavior in this forum. I think I see where you're trying to lead this. Let me see if I can clarify. Yes, you did contribute code and so you are historically responsible for pieces of setup.exe (unless they've been rewritten by now, which is doubtful, I guess). You are not, however, responsible for actively maintaining or supporting setup.exe currently. A casual reader of this mailing list might have been led to believe that you were somehow responsible for setup.exe as in the I have a problem will you help me with it sense. So, I stepped in to clarify. It's difficult to say (although we can certainly guess) which definition of responsible you were talking about so please take the keeping you honest comment as trying to make you communicate a little more clearly. I certainly was not intending to imply that you were some vile, loathsome committer of falsehoods. I'm sorry that you took it that way. But, if you stop to think about it, if I was really doing something like that then, with my awful email style, wouldn't it be more likely that I'd say something like: In what way would you think that you could possibly be considered to be responsible for setup.exe? You haven't contributed anything to the project in some time. I can't see any useful reason for you to be representing yourself in this matter. This message does nothing to advance this discussion. ? Instead, I was trying to emulate your lighthearted, playful style. Apparently, I didn't emulate you as well as I thought since surely, if I had, you would have been instructed by my response just as you continually try to lead me towards the light with all of your thoughtful, humorous (if slightly repetitive) missives. I guess my ham-fistedness touched a nerve and so does rate another apology. I am sorry that I could not properly emulate your style so as to make my intent clearer to you. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
setup alternatives (was Re: Bespoke installations: simple elegance of setup.exe when setup.ini is absent)
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 12:57:18PM -0700, Sean McMahon wrote: I for one appreciate the clarification as I sent a detailed bug-report to this person assuming they were the maintainer. My question as I've asked before is, can or is someone working on improving accessibility of setup.exe for those of us who have to use windows via a screenreader and keyboard. Many of the buttons and controlls do not get focus and can't be opperated in the normal manner. Did you happen to follow the setup.exe sucks thread over in cygwin-apps? Basically, it boils down to the fact that I and others are not really thrilled with setup.exe in its current form. While it is an impressive program in some ways, the UI is (apparently) too non-intuitive and the mean-time between bug fixes is too long. Are you aware of a setup-like program out there which gets it right as far as UI is concerned? It would be nice to transition to an open-sources alternative which was actively supported. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Bespoke installations: simple elegance of setup.exe when setup.ini is absent
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 03:39:51PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: - I am glad that Chris' comments clarified that. Let us all hope that he applies this helpful service across the board, and not just for those who call him on his often bizarre behavior here. Well, except for the false accusations of dishonesty part, I don't think that's very helpful to anybody. Yes, Gary, I'll be glad to respond to you again. You have only but to profess indignation at a harmless turn of phrase and I'll be there to provide you with the outlet you are apparently looking for. To just to address your hope -- with my awful email style how could I resist putting anyone in their place who dared step out of line? Are you afraid that your strange power over me, where I immediately start being helpful after you've made one of your every-few-weeks vituperative forays into this mailing list, might cause me to shirk my duties? Have no fear Mr. Mesmer, I'll do my duty. I can resist your powers just enough for that, at least. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: setup alternatives (was Re: Bespoke installations: simple elegance of setup.exe when setup.ini is absent)
What about http://sourceforge.net/projects/wix/? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 4:39 PM To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: setup alternatives (was Re: Bespoke installations: simple elegance of setup.exe when setup.ini is absent) On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 12:57:18PM -0700, Sean McMahon wrote: I for one appreciate the clarification as I sent a detailed bug-report to this person assuming they were the maintainer. My question as I've asked before is, can or is someone working on improving accessibility of setup.exe for those of us who have to use windows via a screenreader and keyboard. Many of the buttons and controlls do not get focus and can't be opperated in the normal manner. Did you happen to follow the setup.exe sucks thread over in cygwin-apps? Basically, it boils down to the fact that I and others are not really thrilled with setup.exe in its current form. While it is an impressive program in some ways, the UI is (apparently) too non-intuitive and the mean-time between bug fixes is too long. Are you aware of a setup-like program out there which gets it right as far as UI is concerned? It would be nice to transition to an open-sources alternative which was actively supported. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Bespoke installations: simple elegance of setup.exe when setup.ini is absent
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, 20:58:44 -0500 Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: As one of the many people responsible for setup... On Mon, 2 May 2005, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: - I am responsible for a good portion of setup's UI. It used to be a series of dialog boxes. It is now a Wizard-style UI. I did that. I believe it was simply the choice of the word responsible that cgf objected to. Along with the above use of the present tense am, I can see how casual observers might be (and were) confused. From http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionaryva=responsiblex=0y=0: 1 a: liable to be called on to answer b: liable to be called to account as the primary cause, motive, or agent 3 : marked by or involving responsibility or accountability Perhaps: As one of the many contributors to setup... and I contributed a good portion of setup's UI. might have been better choices in hind sight. -- Brian Ford Senior Realtime Software Engineer VITAL - Visual Simulation Systems FlightSafety International the best safety device in any aircraft is a well-trained pilot... -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Bespoke installations: simple elegance of setup.exe when setup.ini is absent
-Original Message- From: Brian Ford Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 5:45 PM To: Gary R. Van Sickle Cc: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: RE: Bespoke installations: simple elegance of setup.exe when setup.ini is absent On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, 20:58:44 -0500 Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: As one of the many people responsible for setup... On Mon, 2 May 2005, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: - I am responsible for a good portion of setup's UI. It used to be a series of dialog boxes. It is now a Wizard-style UI. I did that. I believe it was simply the choice of the word responsible that cgf objected to. Unfortunately no, Brian. What Chris objected to was my taking him to task over an uncalled-for rude comment he made. His comments in this thread are, in his mind anyway, some sort of retribution for that. Yeah, I don't get it either. -- Gary R. Van Sickle -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Bespoke installations: simple elegance of setup.exe when setup.ini is absent
Chris, Chris, Chris. I can imagine how anxious you must be, having to wait up to several full hours for my responses to your avoid-the-issue posts, but really you only have yourself to blame. We could both go on to much more productive things if you'd simply admit that you were out of line and have been on far too many occaisions, and promise to behave better in the future. And then, if you actually do behave better in the future, why, in thirty years or so, we'll look back over a homebrew to your inexplicable rudeness and this epiphany you're having after having been called on it enough times, and O, how we'll laugh! (BTW: that's not the royal we, that's the Cygwin community we, which is lucky enough to be witnessing this historic event. I know you believe that you and I are some sort of internet soulmates or something, but, well, no, we ain't. And that's the you and I we there, lest anybody become any more confused.) Ok, fine, I'll write a short response for you here to tide you over, until such time as I can address your aforementioned avoid-the-issue posts. Don't say I never did nothin for ya. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 4:16 PM To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Bespoke installations: simple elegance of setup.exe when setup.ini is absent On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 03:39:51PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: - I am glad that Chris' comments clarified that. Let us all hope that he applies this helpful service across the board, and not just for those who call him on his often bizarre behavior here. Well, except for the false accusations of dishonesty part, I don't think that's very helpful to anybody. Yes, Gary, I'll be glad to respond to you again. You have only but to profess indignation at a harmless turn of phrase You would characterize your deliberate, public, and unwarranted questioning of my honesty as harmless, Chris? Are you so sure that such bizarre behavior does you no harm? and I'll be there to provide you with the outlet you are apparently looking for. Who's looking for what now? Is that what your inexplicable rudeness and now false accusations of dishonesty are? Some sort of outlet for your pent up hatred of the Cygwin community, or the Man, or humanity, or the World? One is indeed drawn to such a conclusion, in the absence of any other logical explanation. If that is so, let me ask you: Is it working? Do your snide comments ease the pain, Chris? Do they, Chris? Do they? To just to address your hope -- with my awful email style how could I resist putting anyone in their place who dared step out of line? I don't know how, which is why I'm hoping you'll be able to apply this new standard in the same fair and even-handed fashion that you've applied your puzzlingly unwarranted rudeness policy. Heretofore, I am unaware of any instance in which you kept anybody honest and/or accused them of dishonesty. You certainly have to agree that implementing such a policy will be a much more involved task than randomly spraying the Cygwin mailing lists with rude comments. It will involve many hours of checking the time between various posts, poring over cvs logs, and who knows what other kinds of time-consuming research. I am well aware that you are already saddled with more than enough work. I simply hope you're up to the additional load. Are you afraid that your strange power over me, Nobody has anything to fear from my strange power over you, Chris. where I immediately start being helpful after you've made one of your every-few-weeks vituperative forays into this mailing list, might cause me to shirk my duties? Well, I don't know what vituperative means, but if it's something along the lines of When Chris is called on his inappropriate behavior, he temporarily 'shapes up', you can set your watch by it, well, frankly, yes. Have no fear Mr. Mesmer, I'll do my duty. I can resist your powers just enough for that, at least. Excellent. I shall await with bated breath the first instance of you falsely accusing somebody else on this list of dishonesty! What an exciting time to be a member of the Cygwin community[1]! -- Gary R. Van Sickle [1] By member of the Cygwin community I of course mean what everybody knows I mean, no more, no less. Don't want to get two false accusations of dishonesty in a row! -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Bespoke installations: simple elegance of setup.exe when setup.ini is absent
Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: ... [Yet more boring vitriolic rubbish.] ... I've been on this list for a good four years now, and never ever considered setting up a filter. I came close during the fortune flamewars and I'm getting even more close now. Please, Gary and CGF, can you take your discussion offline. -- Cliff -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Bespoke installations: simple elegance of setup.exe when setup.ini is absent
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 12:57:03AM +0100, Cliff Hones wrote: Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: ... [Yet more boring vitriolic rubbish.] ... I've been on this list for a good four years now, and never ever considered setting up a filter. I came close during the fortune flamewars and I'm getting even more close now. Please, Gary and CGF, can you take your discussion offline. Sorry, Cliff. You're right. I'll stop now. I was having fun but it was at the expense of the cygwin mailing list. There really is no place to take this off-line since Gary has adamantly vetoed the idea of personal email. I guess the cygwin-talk list is an option but there's no reason to bore people over there either. So, I'll stop now. My apologies to the cygwin list. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Bespoke installations: simple elegance of setup.exe when setup.ini is absent
Chris, why are you doing this to yourself? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 9:54 PM To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Bespoke installations: simple elegance of setup.exe when setup.ini is absent On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 07:06:43PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 08:58:44PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: [snip] Ahem. As one of the many people responsible for setup, I take issue with the accusation that it is either simple or elegant. ;-) In this case, responsible for setup == submitted some patches in 2003 and ignored most (all?) setup problems since then. cgf Your welcome. Get over me Chris: one of the many people responsible for setup. I know you didn't miss the qualifier there, so why the hate? Only you can help you, Chris. You haven't been a setup developer for a long time. I'm just trying to keep you honest, Gary, old bean, Trying to keep [me] honest? Please tell the class what part of the following statement is in any way dishonest: As one of the many people responsible for setup, I take issue with the accusation that it is either simple or elegant. ;-) That was the statement I made, in full. You are now accusing me of dishonesty in making that statement. The statement is provably true; in fact you've inadvertantly admitted that yourself in this very thread. Twice. In what way do you erroneously believe the statement to be dishonest? On what basis do you accuse me of dishonesty? Don't wait for the translation, answer the question. just like you've been doing for me all of these years. I do not recall even a single instance of you giving me any reason to question your honesty. Until this post. You are accusing me of dishonesty in the same post in which you prove the statement in question true. As near as I can tell, you are ham-handedly attempting to either: A. Deflect the attention I have called to your aberrant behavior with even worse behavior. B. Discredit me personally by falsely calling into question both my honesty and my contributions to the Cygwin project. Which is it Chris? Or is there a third explanation I'm missing here? Surely, you don't mind my taking pot shots at you Apparently I'm not getting through to you here, Chris, so allow me to attempt to make this as clear as I possibly can: I mind it when you take pot shots at *anybody* without cause (or with *negative* cause), which you have done on a regular basis here for as long as I have been acquainted with you. Which you have done in the very post I am replying to here. That is the one and only problem I have with your behavior here. Well, the only one I had until this post anyway. It is painfully obvious you are not unaware that the snide comments I call you on are inappropriate either. Every single time me or anybody else calls you on them, there's a sudden (completely coincidental I'm sure) burst of civil and helpful replies from you to posts which, just prior to the admonition, would have at best been ignored by you, and at worst gotten the same childish, rude treatment. Don't even try to claim you don't notice that pattern, nor that you didn't do exactly that after this current mkstemp instance. What is not at all obvious to me is why you insist on behaving in this manner. It gains you nothing but a reputation as a jerk. It's not like there's some sort of shortage of *appropriate* opportunities to behave in such a fashion. Most importantly to me, it can only serve to discourage people from contributing to the Cygwin project. But all that is for another thread. The issue currently at hand is your false accusations of dishonesty on my part. whenever I think you've done something wrong do you? Again, please tell me, and the rest of the community, what exactly it is that you believe warrants calling me a liar in this forum. How could you possibly mind that? As somebody falsely accused of dishonesty by you, Chris, how could I not mind it? I don't like being falsely accused of lying any more than you like being rightfully accused of making uncalled-for rude comments. I impatiently await your public explanation, if not retraction, if not apology, for this disturbing new low in your behavior in this forum. -- Gary R. Van Sickle -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Bespoke installations: simple elegance of setup.exe when setup.ini is absent
On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 09:21:08PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: Chris, why are you doing this to yourself? Come on, GRVS. You know the answer to that! It's fun! I'm also doing it to help you, as I have repeatedly stated. You now have the outlet you've been craving for almost two years. I'm sure this has finally gotten your blood pumping after years of non-response from me. Also, if you must know, I'm getting something out of this, too. I've got a wicked cold and am confined to the house for a few days. As somebody falsely accused of dishonesty by you, Chris, how could I not mind it? I don't like being falsely accused of lying any more than you like being rightfully accused of making uncalled-for rude comments. po-tayt-o/po-tatt-o I impatiently await your public explanation, if not retraction, if not apology, for this disturbing new low in your behavior in this forum. I think I see where you're trying to lead this. Let me see if I can clarify. Yes, you did contribute code and so you are historically responsible for pieces of setup.exe (unless they've been rewritten by now, which is doubtful, I guess). You are not, however, responsible for actively maintaining or supporting setup.exe currently. A casual reader of this mailing list might have been led to believe that you were somehow responsible for setup.exe as in the I have a problem will you help me with it sense. So, I stepped in to clarify. It's difficult to say (although we can certainly guess) which definition of responsible you were talking about so please take the keeping you honest comment as trying to make you communicate a little more clearly. I certainly was not intending to imply that you were some vile, loathsome committer of falsehoods. I'm sorry that you took it that way. But, if you stop to think about it, if I was really doing something like that then, with my awful email style, wouldn't it be more likely that I'd say something like: In what way would you think that you could possibly be considered to be responsible for setup.exe? You haven't contributed anything to the project in some time. I can't see any useful reason for you to be representing yourself in this matter. This message does nothing to advance this discussion. ? Instead, I was trying to emulate your lighthearted, playful style. Apparently, I didn't emulate you as well as I thought since surely, if I had, you would have been instructed by my response just as you continually try to lead me towards the light with all of your thoughtful, humorous (if slightly repetitive) missives. I guess my ham-fistedness touched a nerve and so does rate another apology. I am sorry that I could not properly emulate your style so as to make my intent clearer to you. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Bespoke installations: simple elegance of setup.exe when setup.ini is absent
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 12:37:38AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 09:21:08PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: Chris, why are you doing this to yourself? Come on, GRVS. You know the answer to that! It's fun! I'm also doing it to help you, as I have repeatedly stated. You now have the outlet you've been craving for almost two years. I'm sure this has finally gotten your blood pumping after years of non-response from me. Also, if you must know, I'm getting something out of this, too. I've got a wicked cold and am confined to the house for a few days. Oops. I meant to add It gives me something to pass the time here. Doesn't make much sense without that. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Bespoke installations: simple elegance of setup.exe when setup.ini is absent
On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 08:58:44PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: [snip] Ahem. As one of the many people responsible for setup, I take issue with the accusation that it is either simple or elegant. ;-) In this case, responsible for setup == submitted some patches in 2003 and ignored most (all?) setup problems since then. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Bespoke installations: simple elegance of setup.exe when setup.ini is absent
On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 08:58:44PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: [snip] Ahem. As one of the many people responsible for setup, I take issue with the accusation that it is either simple or elegant. ;-) In this case, responsible for setup == submitted some patches in 2003 and ignored most (all?) setup problems since then. cgf Your welcome. Get over me Chris: one of the many people responsible for setup. I know you didn't miss the qualifier there, so why the hate? Only you can help you, Chris. -- Gary R. Van Sickle -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Re: Bespoke installations: simple elegance of setup.exe when setup.ini is absent
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 07:06:43PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 08:58:44PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: [snip] Ahem. As one of the many people responsible for setup, I take issue with the accusation that it is either simple or elegant. ;-) In this case, responsible for setup == submitted some patches in 2003 and ignored most (all?) setup problems since then. cgf Your welcome. Get over me Chris: one of the many people responsible for setup. I know you didn't miss the qualifier there, so why the hate? Only you can help you, Chris. You haven't been a setup developer for a long time. I'm just trying to keep you honest, Gary, old bean, just like you've been doing for me all of these years. Surely, you don't mind my taking pot shots at you whenever I think you've done something wrong do you? How could you possibly mind that? cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
RE: Bespoke installations: simple elegance of setup.exe when setup.ini is absent
[snip] Ahem. As one of the many people responsible for setup, I take issue with the accusation that it is either simple or elegant. ;-) -- Gary R. Van Sickle -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
