From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32295 invoked by alias); 29 Apr 2002 12:42:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 32273 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2002 12:42:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO itdomain003.itdomain.net.au) (203.63.157.208) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Apr 2002 12:42:14 -0000 Received: from lifelesswks ([144.137.123.32]) by itdomain003.itdomain.net.au with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.3779); Mon, 29 Apr 2002 22:42:12 +1000 Message-ID: <016301c1ef7b$4d769f00$0200a8c0@lifelesswks> From: "Robert Collins" To: "Sam Edge" , References: <3rbqcu4ljnc0boa3p0vsk6givgp15cue3r@4ax.com> Subject: Re: setup 2.194.2.24: Bug (?) in downloading from internet Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 05:49:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Apr 2002 12:42:12.0767 (UTC) FILETIME=[48FD72F0:01C1EF7B] X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg01591.txt.bz2 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sam Edge" To: > > A 'normal' install - download and install - works fine, no problems. > > Read my and Christopher Faylor's posts especially > <20020429050712.GC27298@redhat.com> where we explain where for some > people download and install with the current version of setup.exe does > not work fine. Actually, the current functionality wil do the trick, as long as you install what you have downloaded. Combined with multi-mirror failure, unless you have a *really* bad phone line connection, you should be able to successfully install bit by bit. Notwithstanding that I do understand and (mostly) agree with whats been said though. > > A reference for this is > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2001-11/msg00271.html. > > Ah. Exactly. :-) > > So is it worth my while looking at the code with an eye to providing a > patch for this (specifically the checkbox option) or is it work in > progress elsewhere? Work is in progress. You (and everyone who's jumped in on this) might like to read Havoc Penningtons recent paper http://www106.pair.com/rhp/free-software-ui.html. What follows is not a critique of your suggestion, just an explanation as to why the checkbox is not appropriate IMO. Before reading the following, be sure to have read Havoc's paper above. We have a problem with setup.exe. * Corrupt package files are not always detected and automatically removed. * That's it. "Redownloading" is a workaround for that. (If in fact there are -other- reasons for "redownloading" then I will revise that statement.) Checkbox's, command line options, and 'special case code' and the redownload itself are all kludges around fixing the key problem. And thats why this has become a sudden issue. I *unknowningly* removed a bit of special case code that interfaced between good logic and the redownload capability to make it seem 'correct' to the user. (BTW: Chris, it was NOT your fault. Really.) The real solution is to positively identify corrupt archives and transparently remove them (perhaps asking the user whether we should delete, backup, or skip over the package). 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/