RE: setup.exe command line options

RE: setup.exe command line options

[Robert Collins]

CVS Setup will replace in-use files correctly (tested on NT only at this
point) if the following predicates are true:

Any given file is only attempted to be replaced once.
The last action on each file is NOT a delete.
The drive letters on the next reboot are the same.

Rob

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stipe Tolj [mailto:tolj@wapme-systems.de]
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 10:21 AM
> Cc: cygwin-apps@sources.redhat.com
> Subject: Re: setup.exe command line options
> 
> 
> "keith_starsmeare@yahoo.co.uk" wrote:
> > 
> > I've made some progress, but it's still (infuriatingly) not 
> at the stage
> > where you can do a whole installation without dialog boxes 
> (no offense -
> > they're lovely dialog boxes!), but you can certainly have 
> *fewer* dialog
> > boxes!
> 
> Maybe cross-topic, but I'll try:
> 
> I would like to see a command line option to setup.exe that can be
> used to "update" the current installed packages from the same source.
> I think of remoted update via setup.exe through a ssh session.
> 
> Is this anyway possible? At least the cygwin core package has it's
> problem I guess since cygwin1.dll needs to be replaced and several NT
> services are running at that point?!
> 
> So the question is: How to upgrade a remote Cygwin machine? I guess no
> solution for now.
> 
> Stipe
> 
> tolj@wapme-systems.de
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Wapme Systems AG
> 
> Münsterstr. 248
> 40470 Düsseldorf
> 
> Tel: +49-211-74845-0
> Fax: +49-211-74845-299
> 
> E-Mail: info@wapme-systems.de
> Internet: http://www.wapme-systems.de
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> wapme.net - wherever you are
> 

Re: setup.exe command line options

[Stipe Tolj]

"keith_starsmeare@yahoo.co.uk" wrote:
> 
> I've made some progress, but it's still (infuriatingly) not at the stage
> where you can do a whole installation without dialog boxes (no offense -
> they're lovely dialog boxes!), but you can certainly have *fewer* dialog
> boxes!

Maybe cross-topic, but I'll try:

I would like to see a command line option to setup.exe that can be
used to "update" the current installed packages from the same source.
I think of remoted update via setup.exe through a ssh session.

Is this anyway possible? At least the cygwin core package has it's
problem I guess since cygwin1.dll needs to be replaced and several NT
services are running at that point?!

So the question is: How to upgrade a remote Cygwin machine? I guess no
solution for now.

Stipe

tolj@wapme-systems.de
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wapme Systems AG

Münsterstr. 248
40470 Düsseldorf

Tel: +49-211-74845-0
Fax: +49-211-74845-299

E-Mail: info@wapme-systems.de
Internet: http://www.wapme-systems.de
-------------------------------------------------------------------
wapme.net - wherever you are

Re: setup.exe command line options

[keith_starsmeare@yahoo.co.uk]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Wilson" <cwilson@ece.gatech.edu>
To: <keith_starsmeare@yahoo.co.uk>
Cc: <cygwin-apps@sources.redhat.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 10:46 PM
Subject: Re: setup.exe command line options


> Release early and often.  Go ahead and publish what you have, against
> current CVS.  You only need to #ifdef stuff out if it will actually
> BREAK something that is currently working.  If it's, say, the handler
> for an incompletely implemented commandline option, then it won't break
> anything (unless someone actually tries to USE that commandline option.)
> - in that case, it doesn't need to be #ifdef'ed.

That's good advice. Thanks!

I'll get it bundled up and fired off to cygwin-patches first thing in the
morning.

Keith

Re: setup.exe command line options

[Robert Collins]

===
----- Original Message -----
From: "keith_starsmeare@yahoo.co.uk" <kxs@breathemail.net>
To: <cygwin-apps@cygwin.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: setup.exe command line options


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf@redhat.com>
> To: <cygwin-apps@cygwin.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 10:39 PM
> Subject: Re: setup.exe command line options
>
>
> > >I'm wondering if I could submit what I have so far, and either
leave some
> > >bits #ifdef'd out (how does the undefined macro
> > >COMMAND_LINE_OPTIONS_FULLY_IMPLEMENTED sound!?) or just miss those
bits
> out
> > >completely from my diff.
>
> > Does it even need to be commented out?  It seems like, if it works
> partially,
> > we just have a partial implementation.  No need to suffer the bit
rot
> assocated
> > with ifdefs.
>
> For the options that don't work, should I leave in the working getopt
code
> and take out the broken implementation?
>
> Also, incorrect usage, or --help pops up a window. Should I take that
out
> completely, ammend it to only include working options, or show all the
> options that I wanted to work?

At this point, if it builds and runs, send it in. Few patches that
change architecture (as this does)  get in on the first submission, so
minimise your effort.

Rob

Re: setup.exe command line options

[keith_starsmeare@yahoo.co.uk]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf@redhat.com>
To: <cygwin-apps@cygwin.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 10:39 PM
Subject: Re: setup.exe command line options


> >I'm wondering if I could submit what I have so far, and either leave some
> >bits #ifdef'd out (how does the undefined macro
> >COMMAND_LINE_OPTIONS_FULLY_IMPLEMENTED sound!?) or just miss those bits
out
> >completely from my diff.

> Does it even need to be commented out?  It seems like, if it works
partially,
> we just have a partial implementation.  No need to suffer the bit rot
assocated
> with ifdefs.

For the options that don't work, should I leave in the working getopt code
and take out the broken implementation?

Also, incorrect usage, or --help pops up a window. Should I take that out
completely, ammend it to only include working options, or show all the
options that I wanted to work?

Keith

Re: setup.exe command line options

[Charles Wilson]

Release early and often.  Go ahead and publish what you have, against 
current CVS.  You only need to #ifdef stuff out if it will actually 
BREAK something that is currently working.  If it's, say, the handler 
for an incompletely implemented commandline option, then it won't break 
anything (unless someone actually tries to USE that commandline option.) 
- in that case, it doesn't need to be #ifdef'ed.

But Robert has the final call, of course.

--Chuck

keith_starsmeare@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

> I've made some progress, but it's still (infuriatingly) not at the stage
> where you can do a whole installation without dialog boxes (no offense -
> they're lovely dialog boxes!), but you can certainly have *fewer* dialog
> boxes!
> 
> I'm wondering if I could submit what I have so far, and either leave some
> bits #ifdef'd out (how does the undefined macro
> COMMAND_LINE_OPTIONS_FULLY_IMPLEMENTED sound!?) or just miss those bits out
> completely from my diff.
> 
> I was hoping to submit the final fully working diffs, but I'm only working
> in my spare time and everytime I have a look at the latest sources they've
> moved on so far.... I'm always playing catch up! I've done a lot of the
> grunt work; and I'd like some feedback on what I've done.
> 
> Keith
> 
> 

Re: setup.exe command line options

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 10:36:44PM -0000, keith_starsmeare@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>I've made some progress, but it's still (infuriatingly) not at the stage
>where you can do a whole installation without dialog boxes (no offense -
>they're lovely dialog boxes!), but you can certainly have *fewer* dialog
>boxes!
>
>I'm wondering if I could submit what I have so far, and either leave some
>bits #ifdef'd out (how does the undefined macro
>COMMAND_LINE_OPTIONS_FULLY_IMPLEMENTED sound!?) or just miss those bits out
>completely from my diff.
>
>I was hoping to submit the final fully working diffs, but I'm only working
>in my spare time and everytime I have a look at the latest sources they've
>moved on so far.... I'm always playing catch up! I've done a lot of the
>grunt work; and I'd like some feedback on what I've done.

Does it even need to be commented out?  It seems like, if it works partially,
we just have a partial implementation.  No need to suffer the bit rot assocated
with ifdefs.

cgf

Re: setup.exe command line options

[Robert Collins]

===
----- Original Message -----
From: "keith_starsmeare@yahoo.co.uk" <kxs@breathemail.net>
To: <cygwin-apps@sources.redhat.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 9:36 AM
Subject: setup.exe command line options


> I've made some progress, but it's still (infuriatingly) not at the
stage
> where you can do a whole installation without dialog boxes (no
offense -
> they're lovely dialog boxes!), but you can certainly have *fewer*
dialog
> boxes!
>
> I'm wondering if I could submit what I have so far, and either leave
some
> bits #ifdef'd out (how does the undefined macro
> COMMAND_LINE_OPTIONS_FULLY_IMPLEMENTED sound!?) or just miss those
bits out
> completely from my diff.

If it compiles, and works via the GUI, it is a candidate for inclusion.
I'd rather not include something #ifdef'd because it doesn't compile
otherwise.

> I was hoping to submit the final fully working diffs, but I'm only
working
> in my spare time and everytime I have a look at the latest sources
they've
> moved on so far.... I'm always playing catch up! I've done a lot of
the
> grunt work; and I'd like some feedback on what I've done.

Submit what you've got, I've not seen the approach yet, so rather than
you having a lot of gruntwork  to do, lets get the review process
happenning ASAP.

Rob

setup.exe command line options

[keith_starsmeare@yahoo.co.uk]

I've made some progress, but it's still (infuriatingly) not at the stage
where you can do a whole installation without dialog boxes (no offense -
they're lovely dialog boxes!), but you can certainly have *fewer* dialog
boxes!

I'm wondering if I could submit what I have so far, and either leave some
bits #ifdef'd out (how does the undefined macro
COMMAND_LINE_OPTIONS_FULLY_IMPLEMENTED sound!?) or just miss those bits out
completely from my diff.

I was hoping to submit the final fully working diffs, but I'm only working
in my spare time and everytime I have a look at the latest sources they've
moved on so far.... I'm always playing catch up! I've done a lot of the
grunt work; and I'd like some feedback on what I've done.

Keith