From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27996 invoked by alias); 4 Nov 2013 18:38:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 27983 invoked by uid 89); 4 Nov 2013 18:38:38 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: vms173007pub.verizon.net Received: from Unknown (HELO vms173007pub.verizon.net) (206.46.173.7) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 18:38:37 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.231] ([unknown] [74.104.179.122]) by vms173007.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 32bit (built Apr 16 2009)) with ESMTPA id <0MVR00E0Q53JJ800@vms173007.mailsrvcs.net> for cygwin@cygwin.com; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 12:38:20 -0600 (CST) Message-id: <5277E992.8070602@cygwin.com> Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 18:38:00 -0000 From: "Larry Hall (Cygwin)" Reply-to: cygwin@cygwin.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1 MIME-version: 1.0 To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Seeking a suggestion for unattended mass install procedure References: <5F8AAC04F9616747BC4CC0E803D5907D0C40C86D@MLBXv04.nih.gov> <5277D4A0.1050809@cygwin.com> <5F8AAC04F9616747BC4CC0E803D5907D0C40C913@MLBXv04.nih.gov> <5277DB67.5050903@cygwin.com> <5F8AAC04F9616747BC4CC0E803D5907D0C40C962@MLBXv04.nih.gov> In-reply-to: <5F8AAC04F9616747BC4CC0E803D5907D0C40C962@MLBXv04.nih.gov> Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00085.txt.bz2 On 11/4/2013 1:03 PM, Lavrentiev, Anton (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C] wrote: >> Just make a list from that as part of your install script. > > That is the problem, right there. I counted some 150 directories, > many of which contain 10+ packages, easily. A manageable install > command would have looked like "setup.exe -L directory -a" to > get and install everything it could have found under that directory, > rather than a command that spans two or more screen-fulls to list all > those packages. I'm still not sure what you find so objectionable about this. Are you saying this won't work? Or do you just not like it? > Any other alternative, please? As Eric points out, you don't really have to list all the packages, just the dependencies. So if you don't like the number of overall packages to list, you can cut that down to a more reasonable number by specifying only the top-level ones. But that does require more work to figure that out (though I'm assuming this happens once or rarely, if this is really just an unattended install). That's why I suggested the alternative of just listing all the packages in the download directory. It's brute force but it's easy to do. Alternatively, you can grab the sources for setup and add an option to do what you want the way you want it. -- Larry _____________________________________________________________________ A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email? -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple