Re: [SETUP.exe] Couple observations on v2.171/ possible bugs
- Original Message - From: "Gary R. Van Sickle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I think I agree with you. Rob, is this expected behavior? There's code in there to trim the list, sounds like it's not working quite right, Rob
RE: [SETUP.exe] Couple observations on v2.171/ possible bugs
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Brian Keener > > Just updated my CVS and rebuilt Setup and my version now shows 2.171 and I > tried a test one and noticed two things - One I believe is a definite bug and > the other I would say is up for interpretation - to me it is a bug. If it > makes a difference - I am running Win2000 and also just updated all my > packages. > > 1) I noticed that while running the new Windowed version (nice job Gary) *blush* Thanks ;-). >that > if I clicked to any other window or several other windows that I had open I > could click back to setup (and it would come to the top) with no > problem until > I got to the Chooser window. Once chooser is open, if I clicked on other > windows I could not click on setup and get it back to the top. I had to > minimize any window on top of it until it was the top window and then I could > continue with setup. > Yeah, that's a known misfeature. You can ALT-TAB back to it as well though (you should be able to, can you?). I think we can leave that one for the next release, unless people think it will be a major problem. I don't think there's an easy fix for it. > 2) I always do a download from internet and then do an install from local > directory. While doing my download I was given the option to update my tiff > from version 3.5.5-3 to 3.5.6beta-2 and I selected keep the current version > (3.5.5-3) and so setup did not download the 3.5.6beta-2 as would be > expected. > I checked and yes there is no 3.5.6beta-2 as there should not be. > However when > I then said Install from local directory I was still presented with > the option > to install the 3.5.6beta-2 version, even though it does not exist on my disk > and it was not downloaded. It would seem to me that if I am doing an install > from local directory the only package versions that I should be shown > are those > for which there is actually a file on disk. If the package is installed I > should see it (for the purpose of uninstall or skip) but any other > options like > sources or a version install should be based on if the actual file exists. > I think I agree with you. Rob, is this expected behavior? -- Gary R. Van Sickle Brewer. Patriot.
RE: install from localdir without setup.ini?
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Robert Collins > > Gary, I've an issue with setup that I think is in your court... > > run setup. > next > install from local dir > choose a directory with a single file in it - foo-1-1.tar.bz2 > click next. > try again. > really, I want the next page. > > > > Rob > Son of a diddly. I'll sees what I can do. -- Gary R. Van Sickle Brewer. Patriot.
[SETUP.exe] Couple observations on v2.171/ possible bugs
Just updated my CVS and rebuilt Setup and my version now shows 2.171 and I tried a test one and noticed two things - One I believe is a definite bug and the other I would say is up for interpretation - to me it is a bug. If it makes a difference - I am running Win2000 and also just updated all my packages. 1) I noticed that while running the new Windowed version (nice job Gary) that if I clicked to any other window or several other windows that I had open I could click back to setup (and it would come to the top) with no problem until I got to the Chooser window. Once chooser is open, if I clicked on other windows I could not click on setup and get it back to the top. I had to minimize any window on top of it until it was the top window and then I could continue with setup. 2) I always do a download from internet and then do an install from local directory. While doing my download I was given the option to update my tiff from version 3.5.5-3 to 3.5.6beta-2 and I selected keep the current version (3.5.5-3) and so setup did not download the 3.5.6beta-2 as would be expected. I checked and yes there is no 3.5.6beta-2 as there should not be. However when I then said Install from local directory I was still presented with the option to install the 3.5.6beta-2 version, even though it does not exist on my disk and it was not downloaded. It would seem to me that if I am doing an install from local directory the only package versions that I should be shown are those for which there is actually a file on disk. If the package is installed I should see it (for the purpose of uninstall or skip) but any other options like sources or a version install should be based on if the actual file exists. These are just a couple of my observations. bk
install from localdir without setup.ini?
Gary, I've an issue with setup that I think is in your court... run setup. next install from local dir choose a directory with a single file in it - foo-1-1.tar.bz2 click next. try again. really, I want the next page. Rob
Re: setup.exe copyright?
Robert Collins wrote: > > Setup.exe doesn't not require copyright assignment - it's not part of > cygwin. I misunderstood the contributions page, then. I sent in my release form because of the file type guessing patches I contributed. Making it part of Cygwin, or at least requiring assignment to RH would certainly resolve this question. That is, as long as we all trust Red Hat. :) Let's face it: you're only supposed to install Cygwin and its associated packages with setup.exe, so. Whoever put cinstall underneath the winsup directory surely had the idea that setup.exe was part of the Cygwin experience! -- = ICBM Address: 36.8274040 N, 108.0204086 W, alt. 1714m
Re: tetex-beta-2
[redirecting to cygwin-apps] On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 11:57:05PM +0100, Jerome BENOIT wrote: >Today I upload a new version of tetex-beta (tetex-beta-2) by using `scp' >as I did a few mnth ago. Does someone want to help Jerome with issues regarding his release? I've fixed the setup.hint file: @ tetex-beta sdesc: "The TeX text formatting system" category: Libs Text requires: ash bash cygwin libpng perl zlib but the version issue is still a problem. tetex-beta-2.tar.gz is not a correct version number, obviously. Please check out http://cygwin.com/setup.html for details. Otherwise, Jerome, please ask questions here. cgf
Re: Success report: Setup.exe on Windows 2000.
On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 09:35:36AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: >The second issue is that (IMO) for users, in a hierarchical environment, >finding a category Full, is less intuitive than a hierarchical container >that encompasses everything. I've the same objection about both things, >so I chose this in an attempt to reduce user confusion. If you feel that >this will cause mroe confusion, then we can reexamine things. Nope. I agree that hierarchical is better. >>Or, at least that's what I was proposing as a quick fix. It sounds >>like the new version of setup will have more functionality. I think it >>would have been nice (tm) if we could have released something like what >>I envisioned earlier. I thought that it was a relatively simple thing >>to do and that it would have cut back on some user confusion. > >I did intend to do just that. However a couple of things intervened. >1) The categories released version of the code is nowhere near as clean >internally, making clickable categories function was painful (I didn't >succeed after a moderate attempt). Ok. It sounds like we have something better anyway. >2) My time of late has been much less available than I might wish. Yeah, I know the feeling. My sympathies or congratulations depending on how much fun the "other stuff" might be. cgf
Re: Success report: Setup.exe on Windows 2000.
- Original Message - From: "Christopher Faylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I don't understand. Why is there an "All" there at all? The only thing > that I've asked for, and have been asking for, is clickable categories. I > wasn't asking for special "All" logic. The All is a freebie that took me all of an hour. > I thought that that I had stressed this previously. I wasn't expecting > anyone to try to add "All" logic to setup.exe. I thought you'd argued > against that, in fact. It can be easily done by 'upset'. Cool. I needed something to test my clickable categories code on. An All category was the easiest way. The second issue is that (IMO) for users, in a hierarchical environment, finding a category Full, is less intuitive than a hierarchical container that encompasses everything. I've the same objection about both things, so I chose this in an attempt to reduce user confusion. If you feel that this will cause mroe confusion, then we can reexamine things. > I don't even understand why we need multiple levels, at least at this > point. We already had the ability to put one package in multiple > categories. That's all that I was expecting. The Full category would > just be a separate category with everything in it. See above. > Or, at least that's what I was proposing as a quick fix. It sounds like > the new version of setup will have more functionality. I think it would > have been nice (tm) if we could have released something like what I > envisioned earlier. I thought that it was a relatively simple thing to > do and that it would have cut back on some user confusion. I did intend to do just that. However a couple of things intervened. 1) The categories released version of the code is nowhere near as clean internally, making clickable categories function was painful (I didn't succeed after a moderate attempt). 2) My time of late has been much less available than I might wish. Rob
Re: Success report: Setup.exe on Windows 2000.
On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 09:07:10AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: >From: "Christopher Faylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>I wasn't expecting you to provide this. All that I wanted was >>clickable categories. I'll take care of providing an uber-category. >> >>FWIW, I was going to call it "Full" rather than "All" since you pointed >>out that there could be a time when there are mutually exclusive >>packages offered. > >I'm making it clickable as the next step. I'd done all the hard work >for multiple levels back in decemeber. We can twiddle this around >quite easily until it looks 'right' to the user. I don't understand. Why is there an "All" there at all? The only thing that I've asked for, and have been asking for, is clickable categories. I wasn't asking for special "All" logic. I thought that that I had stressed this previously. I wasn't expecting anyone to try to add "All" logic to setup.exe. I thought you'd argued against that, in fact. It can be easily done by 'upset'. I don't even understand why we need multiple levels, at least at this point. We already had the ability to put one package in multiple categories. That's all that I was expecting. The Full category would just be a separate category with everything in it. Or, at least that's what I was proposing as a quick fix. It sounds like the new version of setup will have more functionality. I think it would have been nice (tm) if we could have released something like what I envisioned earlier. I thought that it was a relatively simple thing to do and that it would have cut back on some user confusion. cgf
Re: setup.exe copyright?
Setup.exe doesn't not require copyright assignment - it's not part of cygwin. Rob === - Original Message - From: "Warren Young" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 5:18 AM Subject: Re: setup.exe copyright? > Christopher Faylor wrote: > > > > I just perused the setup.exe source for the first time in a long time > > and found a few copyrights from a few different people. > > I understood that when you signed the consent forms, you signed over > your copyrights to Red Hat, for simplicity's sake. Therefore, the about > box should only say "Copyright (c) 2002 Red Hat, Inc." > -- > = ICBM Address: 36.8274040 N, 108.0204086 W, alt. 1714m >
Re: Success report: Setup.exe on Windows 2000.
=== - Original Message - From: "Christopher Faylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I wasn't expecting you to provide this. All that I wanted was clickable > categories. I'll take care of providing an uber-category. > > FWIW, I was going to call it "Full" rather than "All" since you pointed out > that there could be a time when there are mutually exclusive packages offered. I'm making it clickable as the next step. I'd done all the hard work for multiple levels back in decemeber. We can twiddle this around quite easily until it looks 'right' to the user. Rob
Re: setup.exe copyright?
Robert Collins wrote: > > There is a step beyond... rather than a copyright assignment, we can > require mugshots :]. HAVE YOU SEEN THIS CODER: Wanted for improper curly-brace placement on 5 systems -- = ICBM Address: 36.8274040 N, 108.0204086 W, alt. 1714m
Re: setup.exe copyright?
Christopher Faylor wrote: > > I just perused the setup.exe source for the first time in a long time > and found a few copyrights from a few different people. I understood that when you signed the consent forms, you signed over your copyrights to Red Hat, for simplicity's sake. Therefore, the about box should only say "Copyright (c) 2002 Red Hat, Inc." -- = ICBM Address: 36.8274040 N, 108.0204086 W, alt. 1714m
RE: whois package
Fixed. I'm not sure how the cygwin readme in the source package is supposed to be named/located. I just dropped it in there. Mark > -Original Message- > From: Gerrit P. Haase [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 8:16 PM > To: Christopher Faylor > Subject: Re: whois package > > > Hallo Christopher, > > Am 2002-01-05 um 00:09 schriebst du: > > >>sdesc: "GNU Whois" > >>ldesc: "A client for the whois directory service. It > allows you to retrieve > >>information on domain names, IP addresses, and more." > >>category: Net > >>requires: cygwin > > > Didn't even notice the typo. > > > FWIW, this gets my vote. > > It is not stripped: > === > $ ll > total 46 > -rwxr-xr-x1 Siebensc Administ46642 Dec 13 21:42 whois.exe* > > $ strip * > > $ ll > total 24 > -rwxr-xr-x1 Siebensc Administ24576 Jan 5 02:03 whois.exe* > > The Cygwin Readme isn't included in the source package: > === > $ ls whois-4.5.15-1/ > Makefile as_del_list ip_del_listpo/ >whois.1 > Makefile.am config.h make_as_del.pl*test-whois.pl* >whois.c > README data.h make_ip_del.pl*tld_serv_list >whois.h > TODO debian/ make_tld_serv.pl* > whois-4.5.15.patch whois.spec > > > Besides these LITTLE issues I vote pro;) > > > Gerrit > -- > =^..^= > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >
Re: Success report: Setup.exe on Windows 2000.
On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 06:33:47PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: >On Mon, 2002-01-07 at 16:25, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: >> > -Original Message- >> > From: Robert Collins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Yep, looks like that did it. But what's this "All" thing I'm seeing now ;-)? > >Take a guess ;]. Hierarchical categories ... > >I may not like the install-all concept, but while folk think they need >it I wasn't expecting you to provide this. All that I wanted was clickable categories. I'll take care of providing an uber-category. FWIW, I was going to call it "Full" rather than "All" since you pointed out that there could be a time when there are mutually exclusive packages offered. cgf
