New Install May Have a Bug

New Install May Have a Bug

[Mark Jones]

I tried to install Cygwin at a friend's last night and after it finished he
did not have the program "less" installed, and his whole cygwin directory
structure was only about 32 MB in size after the install.  I do not have a
clean install as a reference point as I've already installed XFree86 on my
own computer, but my /bin directory is over 50 MB, so if his whole directory
structure is only 32 MB I suspect he is missing more than just "less".

I have helped others install it on their computers in the past (2-3 months
ago) and have never had a problem, so I think something may have been broken
recently in the install program.  I noticed the package listing interface is
different now that a few months back, so I assume that part has changed,
perhaps with an additional feature of a new bug.

Mark





______________________________________________________________________________
Send a friend your Buddy Card and stay in contact always with Excite Messenger
http://messenger.excite.com



--
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: New Install May Have a Bug

[Charles Wilson]

Remember all of those complaints on the mailing list about "cygwin is 
too big"?  Remember the acrimony that resulted when we (the list) 
declared that we only support installations that included EVERY cygwin 
package?

The reason was because we had no ability to manage dependencies from 
setup.exe.

The new setup DOES handle dependencies, so if you select 'vim' you'll 
automatically get 'ncurses', etc.  Therefore, we can now allow/support 
partial installations.

Concommitant with that, the default installation is now a bare minimum 
of packages -- if you want more, you have to explicitly select the 
additional packages.

--Chuck


Mark Jones wrote:

> I tried to install Cygwin at a friend's last night and after it finished he
> did not have the program "less" installed, and his whole cygwin directory
> structure was only about 32 MB in size after the install.  I do not have a
> clean install as a reference point as I've already installed XFree86 on my
> own computer, but my /bin directory is over 50 MB, so if his whole directory
> structure is only 32 MB I suspect he is missing more than just "less".
> 
> I have helped others install it on their computers in the past (2-3 months
> ago) and have never had a problem, so I think something may have been broken
> recently in the install program.  I noticed the package listing interface is
> different now that a few months back, so I assume that part has changed,
> perhaps with an additional feature of a new bug.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Send a friend your Buddy Card and stay in contact always with Excite Messenger
> http://messenger.excite.com
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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/
> 
> 



--
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: New Install May Have a Bug

[Stephano Mariani]

I and my colleagues share the opinion that the setup should include an
option to install ALL the packages with or without source automatically...

It is a huge pain to manually go through all the packages selecting them
repeatedly since the most recent version isn't always the first to appear.

Perhaps a suggestion made earlier on this list by someone whose name i have
forgotten could be implemented: The setup could be controlled on the
commandline too perhaps with a filename as an argument. The file could
contain all the options required.


Stephano.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Wilson" <cwilson@ece.gatech.edu>
To: "Mark Jones" <mark_umr@excite.com>
Cc: <cygwin@cygwin.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 6:34 PM
Subject: Re: New Install May Have a Bug


> Remember all of those complaints on the mailing list about "cygwin is
> too big"?  Remember the acrimony that resulted when we (the list)
> declared that we only support installations that included EVERY cygwin
> package?
>
> The reason was because we had no ability to manage dependencies from
> setup.exe.
>
> The new setup DOES handle dependencies, so if you select 'vim' you'll
> automatically get 'ncurses', etc.  Therefore, we can now allow/support
> partial installations.
>
> Concommitant with that, the default installation is now a bare minimum
> of packages -- if you want more, you have to explicitly select the
> additional packages.
>
> --Chuck
>
>
> Mark Jones wrote:
>
> > I tried to install Cygwin at a friend's last night and after it finished
he
> > did not have the program "less" installed, and his whole cygwin
directory
> > structure was only about 32 MB in size after the install.  I do not have
a
> > clean install as a reference point as I've already installed XFree86 on
my
> > own computer, but my /bin directory is over 50 MB, so if his whole
directory
> > structure is only 32 MB I suspect he is missing more than just "less".
> >
> > I have helped others install it on their computers in the past (2-3
months
> > ago) and have never had a problem, so I think something may have been
broken
> > recently in the install program.  I noticed the package listing
interface is
> > different now that a few months back, so I assume that part has changed,
> > perhaps with an additional feature of a new bug.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> > Send a friend your Buddy Card and stay in contact always with Excite
Messenger
> > http://messenger.excite.com
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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/
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> 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/
>


--
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: New Install May Have a Bug

[Charles Wilson]

Stephano Mariani wrote:

> I and my colleagues share the opinion that the setup should include an
> option to install ALL the packages with or without source automatically...

> It is a huge pain to manually go through all the packages selecting them
> repeatedly 


Yes, we know.  This is already on the wishlist.

> since the most recent version isn't always the first to appear.


This is a confirmed misfeature, and fixing it is on the wishlist.


> Perhaps a suggestion made earlier on this list by someone whose name i have
> forgotten could be implemented: The setup could be controlled on the
> commandline too perhaps with a filename as an argument. The file could
> contain all the options required.


Yep, AFAIK this is still being developed.

Ya know, if you provided patches to implement your desired 
functionality, it'd probably get into the official setup.exe 
faster...Robert can't do everything by himself...

--Chuck


--
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: New Install May Have a Bug

[Stephano Mariani]

What is the URL of the wishlist?
Also are the setup sources in cygwin sources?
How is the setup built... it is not dependant on cygwin (-mno-cygwin
perhaps)?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Wilson" <cwilson@ece.gatech.edu>
To: "Stephano Mariani" <sk.cygml@btinternet.com>
Cc: "Mark Jones" <mark_umr@excite.com>; <cygwin@cygwin.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 7:00 PM
Subject: Re: New Install May Have a Bug


> Stephano Mariani wrote:
>
> > I and my colleagues share the opinion that the setup should include an
> > option to install ALL the packages with or without source
automatically...
>
> > It is a huge pain to manually go through all the packages selecting them
> > repeatedly
>
>
> Yes, we know.  This is already on the wishlist.
>
> > since the most recent version isn't always the first to appear.
>
>
> This is a confirmed misfeature, and fixing it is on the wishlist.
>
>
> > Perhaps a suggestion made earlier on this list by someone whose name i
have
> > forgotten could be implemented: The setup could be controlled on the
> > commandline too perhaps with a filename as an argument. The file could
> > contain all the options required.
>
>
> Yep, AFAIK this is still being developed.
>
> Ya know, if you provided patches to implement your desired
> functionality, it'd probably get into the official setup.exe
> faster...Robert can't do everything by himself...
>
> --Chuck
>
>
> --
> 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/
>


--
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: New Install May Have a Bug

[Stephano Mariani]

What is the URL of the wishlist?
Also are the setup sources in cygwin sources?
How is the setup built... it is not dependant on cygwin (-mno-cygwin
perhaps)?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Wilson" <cwilson@ece.gatech.edu>
To: "Stephano Mariani" <sk.cygml@btinternet.com>
Cc: "Mark Jones" <mark_umr@excite.com>; <cygwin@cygwin.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 7:00 PM
Subject: Re: New Install May Have a Bug


> Stephano Mariani wrote:
>
> > I and my colleagues share the opinion that the setup should include an
> > option to install ALL the packages with or without source
automatically...
>
> > It is a huge pain to manually go through all the packages selecting them
> > repeatedly
>
>
> Yes, we know.  This is already on the wishlist.
>
> > since the most recent version isn't always the first to appear.
>
>
> This is a confirmed misfeature, and fixing it is on the wishlist.
>
>
> > Perhaps a suggestion made earlier on this list by someone whose name i
have
> > forgotten could be implemented: The setup could be controlled on the
> > commandline too perhaps with a filename as an argument. The file could
> > contain all the options required.
>
>
> Yep, AFAIK this is still being developed.
>
> Ya know, if you provided patches to implement your desired
> functionality, it'd probably get into the official setup.exe
> faster...Robert can't do everything by himself...
>
> --Chuck
>
>
> --
> 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/
>


--
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: New Install May Have a Bug

[Charles Wilson]

Stephano Mariani wrote:

> I and my colleagues share the opinion that the setup should include an
> option to install ALL the packages with or without source automatically...

> It is a huge pain to manually go through all the packages selecting them
> repeatedly 


Yes, we know.  This is already on the wishlist.

> since the most recent version isn't always the first to appear.


This is a confirmed misfeature, and fixing it is on the wishlist.


> Perhaps a suggestion made earlier on this list by someone whose name i have
> forgotten could be implemented: The setup could be controlled on the
> commandline too perhaps with a filename as an argument. The file could
> contain all the options required.


Yep, AFAIK this is still being developed.

Ya know, if you provided patches to implement your desired 
functionality, it'd probably get into the official setup.exe 
faster...Robert can't do everything by himself...

--Chuck


--
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: New Install May Have a Bug

[Zdzislaw Sliwinski]

> option to install ALL the packages with or without source automatically...
>
Absolutely agree on that.

dishlav

--
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: New Install May Have a Bug

[Zdzislaw Sliwinski]

> option to install ALL the packages with or without source automatically...
>
Absolutely agree on that.

dishlav

--
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: New Install May Have a Bug

[Stephano Mariani]

I and my colleagues share the opinion that the setup should include an
option to install ALL the packages with or without source automatically...

It is a huge pain to manually go through all the packages selecting them
repeatedly since the most recent version isn't always the first to appear.

Perhaps a suggestion made earlier on this list by someone whose name i have
forgotten could be implemented: The setup could be controlled on the
commandline too perhaps with a filename as an argument. The file could
contain all the options required.


Stephano.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Wilson" <cwilson@ece.gatech.edu>
To: "Mark Jones" <mark_umr@excite.com>
Cc: <cygwin@cygwin.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 6:34 PM
Subject: Re: New Install May Have a Bug


> Remember all of those complaints on the mailing list about "cygwin is
> too big"?  Remember the acrimony that resulted when we (the list)
> declared that we only support installations that included EVERY cygwin
> package?
>
> The reason was because we had no ability to manage dependencies from
> setup.exe.
>
> The new setup DOES handle dependencies, so if you select 'vim' you'll
> automatically get 'ncurses', etc.  Therefore, we can now allow/support
> partial installations.
>
> Concommitant with that, the default installation is now a bare minimum
> of packages -- if you want more, you have to explicitly select the
> additional packages.
>
> --Chuck
>
>
> Mark Jones wrote:
>
> > I tried to install Cygwin at a friend's last night and after it finished
he
> > did not have the program "less" installed, and his whole cygwin
directory
> > structure was only about 32 MB in size after the install.  I do not have
a
> > clean install as a reference point as I've already installed XFree86 on
my
> > own computer, but my /bin directory is over 50 MB, so if his whole
directory
> > structure is only 32 MB I suspect he is missing more than just "less".
> >
> > I have helped others install it on their computers in the past (2-3
months
> > ago) and have never had a problem, so I think something may have been
broken
> > recently in the install program.  I noticed the package listing
interface is
> > different now that a few months back, so I assume that part has changed,
> > perhaps with an additional feature of a new bug.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> > Send a friend your Buddy Card and stay in contact always with Excite
Messenger
> > http://messenger.excite.com
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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/
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> 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/
>


--
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: New Install May Have a Bug

[Charles Wilson]

Remember all of those complaints on the mailing list about "cygwin is 
too big"?  Remember the acrimony that resulted when we (the list) 
declared that we only support installations that included EVERY cygwin 
package?

The reason was because we had no ability to manage dependencies from 
setup.exe.

The new setup DOES handle dependencies, so if you select 'vim' you'll 
automatically get 'ncurses', etc.  Therefore, we can now allow/support 
partial installations.

Concommitant with that, the default installation is now a bare minimum 
of packages -- if you want more, you have to explicitly select the 
additional packages.

--Chuck


Mark Jones wrote:

> I tried to install Cygwin at a friend's last night and after it finished he
> did not have the program "less" installed, and his whole cygwin directory
> structure was only about 32 MB in size after the install.  I do not have a
> clean install as a reference point as I've already installed XFree86 on my
> own computer, but my /bin directory is over 50 MB, so if his whole directory
> structure is only 32 MB I suspect he is missing more than just "less".
> 
> I have helped others install it on their computers in the past (2-3 months
> ago) and have never had a problem, so I think something may have been broken
> recently in the install program.  I noticed the package listing interface is
> different now that a few months back, so I assume that part has changed,
> perhaps with an additional feature of a new bug.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Send a friend your Buddy Card and stay in contact always with Excite Messenger
> http://messenger.excite.com
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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/
> 
> 



--
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: New Install May Have a Bug

[Roland Glenn McIntosh]

Yes, i too noticed a few peculiarities, however i attributed them to a decision to change the default install of cygwin to a more minimal approach.  Was this the case?

I noticed that with the newer setup I have to specify that I want to install OpenSSH, less, and postgresql, possibly a few other things that used to be installed by "default" and which I took for granted when running setup.exe on a new system.  Also - since package moratorium is lifted, can cygipc be included, and marked as a dependency of postgresql (maybe once the RFC that was posed is answered)?

-rgm


--
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: New Install May Have a Bug

[Charles Wilson]

Roland Glenn McIntosh wrote:

 > Yes, i too noticed a few peculiarities, however i attributed them to
 >  a decision to change the default install of cygwin to a more
 > minimal approach.  Was this the case?
 >
 > I noticed that with the newer setup I have to specify that I want to
 >  install OpenSSH, less, and postgresql, possibly a few other things
 >  that used to be installed by "default"

Right -- because EVERYTHING was installed by default.

 > and which I took for
 > granted when running setup.exe on a new system.  Also - since
 > package moratorium is lifted, can cygipc be included, and marked as
 >  a dependency of postgresql (maybe once the RFC that was posed is
 > answered)?

No, cygipc was excluded for other reasons, not just because of the 
moratorium.

To work correctly, IPC functionality should be integrated into the core 
cgywin.  But, it is not possible to assign the copyright to Cygnus/Red 
Hat because it was taken from the Linux kernel, originally, and is 
covered by a multitude of different owners.  (Yes, it's GPL -- but CORE 
cygwin components, stuff that goes inside cgywin1.dll, must ALSO be 
wholly assigned to Red Hat in addition to the GPLness).

So, we'd have to track down all of those old Linux developers and 
convince them to turn over ownership of that portion of code to Red Hat. 
   Assuming we could find them all, I don't think they'd agree -- 
because that copyright assignment would also affect the current IPC code 
in the LINUX kernel...

Therefore, the cygwin developers have chosen to redo IPC functionality 
from scratch, and work is ongoing.  This isn't as bad an idea as you 
might think: even Ludovic Lange, the guy who originally grabbed the 
Linux IPC stuff out of the Linux kernel to create cygipc, agrees that 
this is the way to go.  CygIPC supports a bare minimum of IPC -- just 
enough so that Ludovic's original app worked -- and very little more. 
If we start from scratch, we can do it better.

So, why not include cygipc as a non-integral package, like readline or 
vim?  Simply expediency.  If we included it, we would lower the desire 
of folks to help us with the "real" implementation.  Therefore, we chose 
to exclude cygIPC in order to prod folks to help out with the real 
cygwin IPC implementation.  (Although, cygIPC is not *disallowed* -- you 
can still use it if you want, but you've got to get it from an external 
site.  We're not nazis).

Search the cygwin-developers mailing list for "cygwin daemon".

--Chuck


--
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: New Install May Have a Bug

[Charles Wilson]

Roland Glenn McIntosh wrote:

 > Yes, i too noticed a few peculiarities, however i attributed them to
 >  a decision to change the default install of cygwin to a more
 > minimal approach.  Was this the case?
 >
 > I noticed that with the newer setup I have to specify that I want to
 >  install OpenSSH, less, and postgresql, possibly a few other things
 >  that used to be installed by "default"

Right -- because EVERYTHING was installed by default.

 > and which I took for
 > granted when running setup.exe on a new system.  Also - since
 > package moratorium is lifted, can cygipc be included, and marked as
 >  a dependency of postgresql (maybe once the RFC that was posed is
 > answered)?

No, cygipc was excluded for other reasons, not just because of the 
moratorium.

To work correctly, IPC functionality should be integrated into the core 
cgywin.  But, it is not possible to assign the copyright to Cygnus/Red 
Hat because it was taken from the Linux kernel, originally, and is 
covered by a multitude of different owners.  (Yes, it's GPL -- but CORE 
cygwin components, stuff that goes inside cgywin1.dll, must ALSO be 
wholly assigned to Red Hat in addition to the GPLness).

So, we'd have to track down all of those old Linux developers and 
convince them to turn over ownership of that portion of code to Red Hat. 
   Assuming we could find them all, I don't think they'd agree -- 
because that copyright assignment would also affect the current IPC code 
in the LINUX kernel...

Therefore, the cygwin developers have chosen to redo IPC functionality 
from scratch, and work is ongoing.  This isn't as bad an idea as you 
might think: even Ludovic Lange, the guy who originally grabbed the 
Linux IPC stuff out of the Linux kernel to create cygipc, agrees that 
this is the way to go.  CygIPC supports a bare minimum of IPC -- just 
enough so that Ludovic's original app worked -- and very little more. 
If we start from scratch, we can do it better.

So, why not include cygipc as a non-integral package, like readline or 
vim?  Simply expediency.  If we included it, we would lower the desire 
of folks to help us with the "real" implementation.  Therefore, we chose 
to exclude cygIPC in order to prod folks to help out with the real 
cygwin IPC implementation.  (Although, cygIPC is not *disallowed* -- you 
can still use it if you want, but you've got to get it from an external 
site.  We're not nazis).

Search the cygwin-developers mailing list for "cygwin daemon".

--Chuck


--
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: New Install May Have a Bug

[Roland Glenn McIntosh]

Yes, i too noticed a few peculiarities, however i attributed them to a decision to change the default install of cygwin to a more minimal approach.  Was this the case?

I noticed that with the newer setup I have to specify that I want to install OpenSSH, less, and postgresql, possibly a few other things that used to be installed by "default" and which I took for granted when running setup.exe on a new system.  Also - since package moratorium is lifted, can cygipc be included, and marked as a dependency of postgresql (maybe once the RFC that was posed is answered)?

-rgm


--
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/

New Install May Have a Bug

[Mark Jones]

I tried to install Cygwin at a friend's last night and after it finished he
did not have the program "less" installed, and his whole cygwin directory
structure was only about 32 MB in size after the install.  I do not have a
clean install as a reference point as I've already installed XFree86 on my
own computer, but my /bin directory is over 50 MB, so if his whole directory
structure is only 32 MB I suspect he is missing more than just "less".

I have helped others install it on their computers in the past (2-3 months
ago) and have never had a problem, so I think something may have been broken
recently in the install program.  I noticed the package listing interface is
different now that a few months back, so I assume that part has changed,
perhaps with an additional feature of a new bug.

Mark





______________________________________________________________________________
Send a friend your Buddy Card and stay in contact always with Excite Messenger
http://messenger.excite.com



--
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: New Install May Have a Bug

[Mark Jones]

>  ----- Original Message -----
>  From: "Charles Wilson" <cwilson@ece.gatech.edu>
>  To: "Mark Jones" <mark_umr@excite.com>
>  Cc: <cygwin@cygwin.com>
>  Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 6:34 PM
>  Subject: Re: New Install May Have a Bug
>  
>  
>  > Concommitant with that, the default installation is now a bare minimum
>  > of packages -- if you want more, you have to explicitly select the
>  > additional packages.

First, thanks for the reply.

I understand the reasoning behind the choice, but I would suggest adding a
little more to the standard of minimum.  Users of any UNIX like system
expect more/less to be present.  I think it will turn people off, and Linux
users that install it will figure the install failed to work properly (like
my friend and I did) or will think Cygwin just doesn't have less or more
ported over to it and assume that Cygwin is not mature yet.

That is my thoughts on the matter.

As I side note, I would have something other than TWM be the default WM for
X, anything other than TWM, such as IceWM, FVWM, lesstif's MWM, etc.

Mark





______________________________________________________________________________
Send a friend your Buddy Card and stay in contact always with Excite Messenger
http://messenger.excite.com



--
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: New Install May Have a Bug

[Charles Wilson]

Mark Jones wrote:


> First, thanks for the reply.
> 
> I understand the reasoning behind the choice, but I would suggest adding a
> little more to the standard of minimum.  Users of any UNIX like system
> expect more/less to be present.  I think it will turn people off, and Linux
> users that install it will figure the install failed to work properly (like
> my friend and I did) or will think Cygwin just doesn't have less or more
> ported over to it and assume that Cygwin is not mature yet.
> 
> That is my thoughts on the matter.


That's probably not a bad idea.  Robert (Chris? Who maintains less?), 
should 'less' be added to the Base package?


> As I side note, I would have something other than TWM be the default WM for
> X, anything other than TWM, such as IceWM, FVWM, lesstif's MWM, etc.


That is off-topic for this list.  All X related questions should go to 
cygwin-xfree@cygwin.com

--Chuck




--
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: New Install May Have a Bug

[Robert Collins]

On Wed, 2001-11-28 at 08:28, Charles Wilson wrote:
> Mark Jones wrote:
> 
> 
> > First, thanks for the reply.
> > 
> > I understand the reasoning behind the choice, but I would suggest adding a
> > little more to the standard of minimum.  Users of any UNIX like system
> > expect more/less to be present.  I think it will turn people off, and Linux
> > users that install it will figure the install failed to work properly (like
> > my friend and I did) or will think Cygwin just doesn't have less or more
> > ported over to it and assume that Cygwin is not mature yet.
> > 
> > That is my thoughts on the matter.
> 
> 
> That's probably not a bad idea.  Robert (Chris? Who maintains less?), 
> should 'less' be added to the Base package?

I don't think so. Once someone creates a metapackage, or I get the
clickable categories done, then the sensible user default becaomes
possible. The issue is that base really needs to be the _base_, not the
'end user default' - because some users may want less installed. (No pun
intended).
 
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: New Install May Have a Bug

[Charles Wilson]

Robert Collins wrote:

>>
>>That's probably not a bad idea.  Robert (Chris? Who maintains less?), 
>>should 'less' be added to the Base package?
>>
> 
> I don't think so. Once someone creates a metapackage, or I get the
> clickable categories done, then the sensible user default becaomes
> possible. The issue is that base really needs to be the _base_, not the
> 'end user default' - because some users may want less installed. (No pun
> intended).


Ah, yes of course.  You are correct.

--Chuck



--
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: New Install May Have a Bug

[Charles Wilson]

Robert Collins wrote:

>>
>>That's probably not a bad idea.  Robert (Chris? Who maintains less?), 
>>should 'less' be added to the Base package?
>>
> 
> I don't think so. Once someone creates a metapackage, or I get the
> clickable categories done, then the sensible user default becaomes
> possible. The issue is that base really needs to be the _base_, not the
> 'end user default' - because some users may want less installed. (No pun
> intended).


Ah, yes of course.  You are correct.

--Chuck



--
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: New Install May Have a Bug

[Robert Collins]

On Wed, 2001-11-28 at 08:28, Charles Wilson wrote:
> Mark Jones wrote:
> 
> 
> > First, thanks for the reply.
> > 
> > I understand the reasoning behind the choice, but I would suggest adding a
> > little more to the standard of minimum.  Users of any UNIX like system
> > expect more/less to be present.  I think it will turn people off, and Linux
> > users that install it will figure the install failed to work properly (like
> > my friend and I did) or will think Cygwin just doesn't have less or more
> > ported over to it and assume that Cygwin is not mature yet.
> > 
> > That is my thoughts on the matter.
> 
> 
> That's probably not a bad idea.  Robert (Chris? Who maintains less?), 
> should 'less' be added to the Base package?

I don't think so. Once someone creates a metapackage, or I get the
clickable categories done, then the sensible user default becaomes
possible. The issue is that base really needs to be the _base_, not the
'end user default' - because some users may want less installed. (No pun
intended).
 
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: New Install May Have a Bug

[Charles Wilson]

Mark Jones wrote:


> First, thanks for the reply.
> 
> I understand the reasoning behind the choice, but I would suggest adding a
> little more to the standard of minimum.  Users of any UNIX like system
> expect more/less to be present.  I think it will turn people off, and Linux
> users that install it will figure the install failed to work properly (like
> my friend and I did) or will think Cygwin just doesn't have less or more
> ported over to it and assume that Cygwin is not mature yet.
> 
> That is my thoughts on the matter.


That's probably not a bad idea.  Robert (Chris? Who maintains less?), 
should 'less' be added to the Base package?


> As I side note, I would have something other than TWM be the default WM for
> X, anything other than TWM, such as IceWM, FVWM, lesstif's MWM, etc.


That is off-topic for this list.  All X related questions should go to 
cygwin-xfree@cygwin.com

--Chuck




--
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: New Install May Have a Bug

[Mark Jones]

>  ----- Original Message -----
>  From: "Charles Wilson" <cwilson@ece.gatech.edu>
>  To: "Mark Jones" <mark_umr@excite.com>
>  Cc: <cygwin@cygwin.com>
>  Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 6:34 PM
>  Subject: Re: New Install May Have a Bug
>  
>  
>  > Concommitant with that, the default installation is now a bare minimum
>  > of packages -- if you want more, you have to explicitly select the
>  > additional packages.

First, thanks for the reply.

I understand the reasoning behind the choice, but I would suggest adding a
little more to the standard of minimum.  Users of any UNIX like system
expect more/less to be present.  I think it will turn people off, and Linux
users that install it will figure the install failed to work properly (like
my friend and I did) or will think Cygwin just doesn't have less or more
ported over to it and assume that Cygwin is not mature yet.

That is my thoughts on the matter.

As I side note, I would have something other than TWM be the default WM for
X, anything other than TWM, such as IceWM, FVWM, lesstif's MWM, etc.

Mark





______________________________________________________________________________
Send a friend your Buddy Card and stay in contact always with Excite Messenger
http://messenger.excite.com



--
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: New Install May Have a Bug

[Gary R Van Sickle]

> What is the URL of the wishlist?

I don't believe it's posted on a website, it's in the README in
winsup/cinstall.

> Also are the setup sources in cygwin sources?

Yes, they're in CVS under winsup/cinstall.

> How is the setup built... it is not dependant on cygwin (-mno-cygwin
> perhaps)?

At this time, it builds along with the rest of Cygwin.  It is not however
dependant on cygwin1.dll.

--
Gary R. Van Sickle
Braemar Inc.
11481 Rupp Dr.
Burnsville, MN 55337


--
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: New Install May Have a Bug

[Gary R Van Sickle]

> What is the URL of the wishlist?

I don't believe it's posted on a website, it's in the README in
winsup/cinstall.

> Also are the setup sources in cygwin sources?

Yes, they're in CVS under winsup/cinstall.

> How is the setup built... it is not dependant on cygwin (-mno-cygwin
> perhaps)?

At this time, it builds along with the rest of Cygwin.  It is not however
dependant on cygwin1.dll.

--
Gary R. Van Sickle
Braemar Inc.
11481 Rupp Dr.
Burnsville, MN 55337


--
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: New Install May Have a Bug

[Heribert Dahms]

what do you think about categories like minimal, typical, (custom), full,
new,
with typical as default?

Bye, Heribert (heribert_dahms@icon-scm.com)

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Robert Collins [SMTP:robert.collins@itdomain.com.au]
> Sent:	Tuesday, November 27, 2001 23:26
> To:	Charles Wilson
> Cc:	Mark Jones; Stephano Mariani; cygwin@cygwin.com
> Subject:	Re: New Install May Have a Bug
> 
> On Wed, 2001-11-28 at 08:28, Charles Wilson wrote:
> > Mark Jones wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > First, thanks for the reply.
> > > 
> > > I understand the reasoning behind the choice, but I would suggest
> adding a
> > > little more to the standard of minimum.  Users of any UNIX like system
> > > expect more/less to be present.  I think it will turn people off, and
> Linux
> > > users that install it will figure the install failed to work properly
> (like
> > > my friend and I did) or will think Cygwin just doesn't have less or
> more
> > > ported over to it and assume that Cygwin is not mature yet.
> > > 
> > > That is my thoughts on the matter.
> > 
> > 
> > That's probably not a bad idea.  Robert (Chris? Who maintains less?), 
> > should 'less' be added to the Base package?
> 
> I don't think so. Once someone creates a metapackage, or I get the
> clickable categories done, then the sensible user default becaomes
> possible. The issue is that base really needs to be the _base_, not the
> 'end user default' - because some users may want less installed. (No pun
> intended).
>  
> 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: New Install May Have a Bug

[Robert Collins]

On Wed, 2001-11-28 at 09:38, Heribert Dahms wrote:
> what do you think about categories like minimal, typical, (custom), full,
> new,
> with typical as default?

I think there's confusion here: categories are applied to what a package
is or does, not to the particular configuration it may fit into.

What you are talking about is metapackages, which are implemented via
categories, but need a new screen to allow the choice - simply for user
clarity - as setup.exe can handle those packages now.

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: New Install May Have a Bug

[Charles Wilson]

Robert Collins wrote:

> On Wed, 2001-11-28 at 09:38, Heribert Dahms wrote:
> 
>>what do you think about categories like minimal, typical, (custom), full,
>>new,
>>with typical as default?
>>
> 
> I think there's confusion here: categories are applied to what a package
> is or does, not to the particular configuration it may fit into.
> 
> What you are talking about is metapackages, which are implemented via
> categories, but need a new screen to allow the choice - simply for user
> clarity - as setup.exe can handle those packages now.


Right, but the 'Base' category is both a "category" in the sense you 
describe, AND a metapackage(sortof) -- simply because everything in 
'Base' is automatically installed.

Hence "add foo to 'Base'" really means "add foo to 'required' metapackage".

But I get what you're saying; 'Base' seems to be THE special case.  In 
all other cases, 'categories' != 'metapackage'

--Chuck



--
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: New Install May Have a Bug

[Robert Collins]

On Wed, 2001-11-28 at 09:52, Charles Wilson wrote:
> Robert Collins wrote:

> > What you are talking about is metapackages, which are implemented via
> > categories, but need a new screen to allow the choice - simply for user
> > clarity - as setup.exe can handle those packages now.
> 
> 
> Right, but the 'Base' category is both a "category" in the sense you 
> describe, AND a metapackage(sortof) -- simply because everything in 
> 'Base' is automatically installed.
> 
> Hence "add foo to 'Base'" really means "add foo to 'required' metapackage".
> 
> But I get what you're saying; 'Base' seems to be THE special case.  In 
> all other cases, 'categories' != 'metapackage'
> 

Thanks for putting so clearly Chuck, yes that is what I am saying.

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: New Install May Have a Bug

[Robert Collins]

On Wed, 2001-11-28 at 09:52, Charles Wilson wrote:
> Robert Collins wrote:

> > What you are talking about is metapackages, which are implemented via
> > categories, but need a new screen to allow the choice - simply for user
> > clarity - as setup.exe can handle those packages now.
> 
> 
> Right, but the 'Base' category is both a "category" in the sense you 
> describe, AND a metapackage(sortof) -- simply because everything in 
> 'Base' is automatically installed.
> 
> Hence "add foo to 'Base'" really means "add foo to 'required' metapackage".
> 
> But I get what you're saying; 'Base' seems to be THE special case.  In 
> all other cases, 'categories' != 'metapackage'
> 

Thanks for putting so clearly Chuck, yes that is what I am saying.

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: New Install May Have a Bug

[Charles Wilson]

Robert Collins wrote:

> On Wed, 2001-11-28 at 09:38, Heribert Dahms wrote:
> 
>>what do you think about categories like minimal, typical, (custom), full,
>>new,
>>with typical as default?
>>
> 
> I think there's confusion here: categories are applied to what a package
> is or does, not to the particular configuration it may fit into.
> 
> What you are talking about is metapackages, which are implemented via
> categories, but need a new screen to allow the choice - simply for user
> clarity - as setup.exe can handle those packages now.


Right, but the 'Base' category is both a "category" in the sense you 
describe, AND a metapackage(sortof) -- simply because everything in 
'Base' is automatically installed.

Hence "add foo to 'Base'" really means "add foo to 'required' metapackage".

But I get what you're saying; 'Base' seems to be THE special case.  In 
all other cases, 'categories' != 'metapackage'

--Chuck



--
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: New Install May Have a Bug

[Robert Collins]

On Wed, 2001-11-28 at 09:38, Heribert Dahms wrote:
> what do you think about categories like minimal, typical, (custom), full,
> new,
> with typical as default?

I think there's confusion here: categories are applied to what a package
is or does, not to the particular configuration it may fit into.

What you are talking about is metapackages, which are implemented via
categories, but need a new screen to allow the choice - simply for user
clarity - as setup.exe can handle those packages now.

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: New Install May Have a Bug

[Heribert Dahms]

what do you think about categories like minimal, typical, (custom), full,
new,
with typical as default?

Bye, Heribert (heribert_dahms@icon-scm.com)

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Robert Collins [SMTP:robert.collins@itdomain.com.au]
> Sent:	Tuesday, November 27, 2001 23:26
> To:	Charles Wilson
> Cc:	Mark Jones; Stephano Mariani; cygwin@cygwin.com
> Subject:	Re: New Install May Have a Bug
> 
> On Wed, 2001-11-28 at 08:28, Charles Wilson wrote:
> > Mark Jones wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > First, thanks for the reply.
> > > 
> > > I understand the reasoning behind the choice, but I would suggest
> adding a
> > > little more to the standard of minimum.  Users of any UNIX like system
> > > expect more/less to be present.  I think it will turn people off, and
> Linux
> > > users that install it will figure the install failed to work properly
> (like
> > > my friend and I did) or will think Cygwin just doesn't have less or
> more
> > > ported over to it and assume that Cygwin is not mature yet.
> > > 
> > > That is my thoughts on the matter.
> > 
> > 
> > That's probably not a bad idea.  Robert (Chris? Who maintains less?), 
> > should 'less' be added to the Base package?
> 
> I don't think so. Once someone creates a metapackage, or I get the
> clickable categories done, then the sensible user default becaomes
> possible. The issue is that base really needs to be the _base_, not the
> 'end user default' - because some users may want less installed. (No pun
> intended).
>  
> 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/