From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9634 invoked by alias); 21 Jan 2013 16:01:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 9613 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Jan 2013 16:01:07 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mho-04-ewr.mailhop.org (HELO mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org) (204.13.248.74) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 16:00:59 +0000 Received: from pool-98-110-183-21.bstnma.fios.verizon.net ([98.110.183.21] helo=cgf.cx) by mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TxJnu-000I0W-R5 for cygwin-apps@cygwin.com; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 16:00:58 +0000 Received: from localhost (ednor.casa.cgf.cx [192.168.187.5]) by cgf.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2CDB880583 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 11:00:57 -0500 (EST) X-Mail-Handler: Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX1/+4Lli8AXGPq2NiC2R6L0/ Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 16:01:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] setup.exe Message-ID: <20130121160057.GB9341@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com References: <20130118210944.GA519@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <87libpd3hq.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <20130119171807.GA17812@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <87fw1wdhng.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <20130119212028.GA17644@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20130120065309.GB17644@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20130121073228.GA8270@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Sender: cygwin-apps-owner@cygwin.com List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com X-SW-Source: 2013-01/txt/msg00067.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 06:46:00PM +0900, green fox wrote: >On 1/21/13, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 04:03:04PM +0900, green fox wrote: >>>On 1/20/13, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>>>What *specifically* do you really like? >>> >>>+1 for being able to specify custom setup.ini Not a happy moment when >>>you realize some package is missing, having spent 2 housr to distribute >>>the blob on the network. >> >> If you are missing a package then sending out a new setup.ini which >> includes the missing package should fix the problem. I don't see how >> being able to specify something other than setup.ini helps. >> >> Btw, I'm not looking for votes. I'm looking for explanations for why >> this option is useful. It seems like the described functionality could >> be handled with just a shell script wrapper. > >Because we do not have a decent package manager And, that's because we don't have any "decent" developers willing to write one. Why haven't you stepped up? But, anyway, you are apparently missing the point. I'm not looking for complaints. I'm looking for actual reasoned arguments for why a patch should be applied. If you are just knee-jerk responding to someone saying "unattended setup" then you're going to have to actually read and understand what the patch does and indicate why it would be useful. cgf