This whole thread got me thinking about possible ways to avoid this "xxx is missing" problem...
I thought that I'd throw an idea out for discussion... Would it make sense to have setup install a dummy script for some of the common utilities and then overwrite that script with the actual utility if it is selected from the gui as it should be? Assume that the missing utility is called "ttt.exe" Have setup create /bin/missing and link "ttt.exe" to missing ln -s /bin/missing /bin/telnet.exe stuckymb [547] > ls -l missing ttt.exe -rwxr-xr-x 1 stuckymb mygroup 214 Mar 25 18:00 missing lrwxrwxrwx 1 stuckymb mygroup 94 Mar 25 17:58 ttt.exe -> missing stuckymb [548] > stuckymb [548] > stuckymb [548] > stuckymb [548] > cat missing #!/bin/sh echo "If you are seeing this message, it means that the" echo " " echo " $0" echo " " echo 'still needs to be selected from within "setup"' echo " " echo 'Please re-run "setup"' echo " " stuckymb [549] > stuckymb [549] > stuckymb [549] > stuckymb [549] > ttt.exe If you are seeing this message, it means that the ./ttt.exe still needs to be selected from within "setup" Please re-run "setup" When setup is re-run to download the actual ttt.exe the dummy ttt.exe could be deleted and then replaced with the correct executable. Just my 0.02 cents worth... --Mark ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Faylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 9:46 PM Subject: Re: missing telnet, solution > On Sat, Mar 23, 2002 at 06:18:05PM +0100, Palic, Darko wrote: > >Hello Christopher, > > > >okay it is nice to follow the request of the users, but why isn't a > >selectbox available, there something like "basic/minimal, common/typical and > >complete" could be selected instead of changing the whole setup? It would > >help! > > What answer are you expecting? It's a volunteer project. We make > changes as time permits and as people are inclined. We thought the > current setup with categories would be an improvement and apparently it > wasn't. It never occurred to us that people wouldn't be able to figure > out that you could click on things and see packages to install. But, > that was the case. > > Once it became clear that there was a problem and that people didn't > like having to select things individually, I would have liked to see an > immediate resolution of the problem but it just didn't happen. It's not > like I can fire anyone for not improving setup for you. I'm just damn > grateful that Robert and others are spending time working on it at all. > > Anyway, the new, just released, version of setup has some improvements > for selecting whole categories. That should make things much easier. > > We're discussing other alternatives all of the time but the basic > problem is that we have a lot of people who just ask aggrieved questions > like the above or who repeat the same observations that have been made > countless times before, and very few people who are actually willing to > help make things better. > > If you want to contribute (and apparently you do), then setup.exe discussions > are happening in the cygwin-apps mailing lists. If you have further questions, > you should (after reviewing the mail archives there) send them there. > > cgf > > > I think the change you're referring to was that we added, at the request > > of many users, a minimal install. It's based on the debian "base" > > category, which does not include bzip2. The default installation is a > > really basic one and it's looking like we need to change that. > > > > Anyway, I'll try to keep in this in mind if we change something in the > > future that impacts Cygwin/XFree86. It never occurred to me that this > > would be an issue. >
