Re: "local install"?

["Markus Hoenicka" <Markus.Hoenicka@uth.tmc.edu>]

Randall,

the original poster's suggestion was not to use setup.exe to download
the packages, but rather a linux box. This way you lose the dependency
tracking in setup.exe (it does not run on Linux afaik), and to
make sure you don't miss a dependency and thus waste a CD you'd have
to download *all* available packages which is a waste of time.

I'm afraid you misunderstood my comments on this issue. I fully agree
that using setup.exe to first download and later install the packages
is the most versatile way of doing things. I just pointed out that
manually downloading the packages, thus bypassing setup.exe in the
first place, will have issues.

regards,
Markus

Randall R Schulz writes:
 > >You lose a lot of the functionality of setup.exe if you do it this way but 
 > >you can certainly do this if you want to have a hard time.
 > 
 > 
 > I don't understand this. You get maximum flexibility by separate "Download 
 > from Internet" and "Install from Local Directory" operations. That way you 
 > can download sources and have them at hand without unconditionally 
 > installing them.
 > 
 > By copying my local installation cache to a CD, I can save others very 
 > large downloads.
 > 
 > I cannot see this as a loss of functionality.
 > 
 > Can you tell me some functionality only available when one uses "Install 
 > from Internet?"
 > 
 > Randall Schulz
 > Mountain View, CA USA
 > 
 > 
 > >...
 > >
 > >regards,
 > >Markus
 > 

-- 
Markus Hoenicka, PhD
UT Houston Medical School
Dept. of Integrative Biology and Pharmacology
6431 Fannin MSB4.114
Houston, TX 77030
(713) 500-6313, -7477
(713) 500-7444 (fax)
Markus.Hoenicka@uth.tmc.edu
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/hoenicka_markus/


--
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/