Crashing setup.exe

Crashing setup.exe

[fergus]

>> Pavel Tsekov said :
>> So ... if you remove the setup.ini from the local
>> package directory, setup.exe won't crash.

Do you mean that separating the file named setup.ini from the folder named
release/ and then running the executable named setup.exe, will result in a
glitch-free installation or upgrade? If this is so and I have not
misunderstood you, then I have three questions. (A) How are the two
different locations of setup.ini and release/ to be identified to setup.exe
so that setup.exe knows about them? (B) At the moment, these two items
"arrive" together in a folder with a name like
ftp%3a%2f%2fmirrors.rcn.net%2fmirrors%2fsources.redhat.com%2fcygwin or some
such: should one therefore manually separate them after download but before
installation? (C) Does your cure apply to all O/S as far as you know? (If I
can discover the answer to (A) then I will try to sort out (B) and *C) for
myself. Thank you.)

Fergus


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Crashing setup.exe

[Pavel Tsekov]

Hello fergus,

Friday, June 07, 2002, 2:28:49 PM, you wrote:

>>> Pavel Tsekov said :
>>> So ... if you remove the setup.ini from the local
>>> package directory, setup.exe won't crash.

fbun> Do you mean that separating the file named setup.ini from the folder named
fbun> release/ and then running the executable named setup.exe, will result in a
fbun> glitch-free installation or upgrade? If this is so and I have not

All I am saying is that when I put a setup.ini in the local package
directory setup.exe crashes.

I'll try to debug this later and then maybe I will have more
information on the cause of the problem.


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

RE: Crashing setup.exe

[robertc]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com 
> [mailto:cygwin-owner@cygwin.com] On Behalf Of 
> fergus@bonhard.uklinux.net
> Sent: Friday, 7 June 2002 10:29 PM
> To: cygwin@cygwin.com
> Cc: fergus@bonhard.uklinux.net
> Subject: Crashing setup.exe
> 
> 
> >> Pavel Tsekov said :
> >> So ... if you remove the setup.ini from the local
> >> package directory, setup.exe won't crash.
> 
> Do you mean that separating the file named setup.ini from the 
> folder named
> release/ and then running the executable named setup.exe, 
> will result in a
> glitch-free installation or upgrade? If this is so and I have not
> misunderstood you, then I have three questions. (A) How are the two
> different locations of setup.ini and release/ to be 
> identified to setup.exe
> so that setup.exe knows about them? 

The location of cached files is relative to each cached setup.ini.

> (B) At the moment, these two items
> "arrive" together in a folder with a name like
> ftp%3a%2f%2fmirrors.rcn.net%2fmirrors%2fsources.redhat.com%2fc
> ygwin or some
> such: should one therefore manually separate them after 
> download but before
> installation? 

No. One SHOULD NOT TOUCH the cygwin packages directory. Setup reserves
the right to do -anything- it wants to that dir, including zapping the
content, moving files etc etc.

> (C) Does your cure apply to all O/S as far as 
> you know? (If I
> can discover the answer to (A) then I will try to sort out 
> (B) and *C) for
> myself. Thank you.)

It's a bug, and will be addressed asap.

Rob


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Crashing setup.exe

[Max Bowsher]

robertc <robert.collins@syncretize.net> wrote:
> No. One SHOULD NOT TOUCH the cygwin packages directory. Setup reserves
> the right to do -anything- it wants to that dir, including zapping the
> content, moving files etc etc.

Setup has the right to use its package cache as it sees fit, but users of setup
have the right to manage setup's use of their hard disc. If everyone treated
package directories opaquely, they would never purge old versions of packages,
and sooner or later, we would all have 10GB package directories. The setup's
handling of its cache should be like the rest of cygwin - if you don't like it,
make a clean, debugged patch to change it, and provide a good argument to why it
should be applied.

I appreciate you are trying to prevent aimless discussion, but setup's cache
_cannot_ be a black box.

Max.




--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

RE: Crashing setup.exe

[Robert Collins]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com 
> [mailto:cygwin-owner@cygwin.com] On Behalf Of Max Bowsher
> Sent: Saturday, 8 June 2002 1:23 AM
> To: cygwin@cygwin.com
> Subject: Re: Crashing setup.exe
> 
> 
> robertc <robert.collins@syncretize.net> wrote:
> > No. One SHOULD NOT TOUCH the cygwin packages directory. 
> Setup reserves
> > the right to do -anything- it wants to that dir, including 
> zapping the
> > content, moving files etc etc.
> 
> Setup has the right to use its package cache as it sees fit, 
> but users of setup
> have the right to manage setup's use of their hard disc. If 
> everyone treated
> package directories opaquely, they would never purge old 
> versions of packages,
> and sooner or later, we would all have 10GB package 
> directories. The setup's
> handling of its cache should be like the rest of cygwin - if 
> you don't like it,
> make a clean, debugged patch to change it, and provide a good 
> argument to why it
> should be applied.

Agreed. 
 
> I appreciate you are trying to prevent aimless discussion, 
> but setup's cache
> _cannot_ be a black box.

I realize this. In fact it's not - and I've not suggested it be a black
box... There are other bits of software - like the setup cache cleaner -
that are very useful. They are intimately linked with setup's treatment
of the cache however, and will have to change as it changes. What I'm
trying to avoid is setup.exe's users getting the impression that there
is any manipulation needed for setup to operate correctly.

Finally, until 'someone' has time to document the exact use of the
cache, it will be a black box to Joe User, until Joe User reads the
code.

Rob


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Crashing setup.exe

[Max Bowsher]

Robert Collins <robert.collins@syncretize.net> wrote:
>> I appreciate you are trying to prevent aimless discussion,
>> but setup's cache
>> _cannot_ be a black box.
> 
> I realize this. In fact it's not - and I've not suggested it be a black
> box... There are other bits of software - like the setup cache cleaner -
> that are very useful. They are intimately linked with setup's treatment
> of the cache however, and will have to change as it changes. What I'm
> trying to avoid is setup.exe's users getting the impression that there
> is any manipulation needed for setup to operate correctly.

Yes.

Max.



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/