RE: "local install"?

RE: "local install"?

[Robert Collins]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Wilson [mailto:cwilson@ece.gatech.edu] 


> Perhaps the Emacs folks (NOT XEmacs -- they already have a different 
> solution) will create a cygwin-setup dirtree once their 
> cygwin port is 
> complete.  Perhaps folks who have ported a package and want 
> to make it 
> available, but do NOT want to accept the maintainership 
> responsibilities 
> that go with *official* package inclusion, will create 
> cygwin-setup-compatible distribution sites with custom setup.ini's. 
> These are all great things, and are reason enough for the multi-site 
> selection capability -- regardless of whether YOU actually use that 
> particular feature.

Yes - federation is good. RPM and .deb achieved this a long time ago...
And now we do to :].

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: "local install"?

[Robert Collins]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randall R Schulz [mailto:rrschulz@cris.com] 

> I cannot get setup.exe to permit multiple selection of 
> mirrors, so how is 
> this magical seamless multi-mirror integration achieved? Can 
> it be done 
> without running setup.exe more than once? If not, what's the 
> advantage over 
> separate download and install?

Ctrl-click or shift-click in the setup mirror site list.
 
> Furthermore, why doesn't the multi-mirror technique, however 
> effected, work 
> for separated download and install, too?

It does.
 
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: "local install"?

[Robert Collins]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Wilson [mailto:cwilson@ece.gatech.edu] 
> > Can you tell me some functionality only available when one uses 
> > "Install
> > from Internet?"
> 
> 
> Sure:  merging multiple "mirrors" into a seamless single-view 
> installation.  (Or, merging an official mirror site + "Bob's 
> archive of 
> cool cygwin packages" + "My company's local cygwin ports" 
> into a single, 
> always-up-to-date single seamless installation).  

"Download from internet" mode does perform this merging, and the install
from local directory grabs all the found .ini files, and then performs
the same merging. So no loss of functionality.

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: "local install"?

[Mark Sheppard]

Surely if you were bothering to make a CD you'd want to include
everything anyway, thus you wouldn't need dependency checking.

Mark.


-----Original Message-----
From: Markus Hoenicka [mailto:Markus.Hoenicka@uth.tmc.edu]
Sent: 01 March 2002 15:51
To: Randall R Schulz; cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: "local install"?


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

--
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: "local install"?

[Markus Hoenicka]

Mark Sheppard writes:
 > Surely if you were bothering to make a CD you'd want to include
 > everything anyway, thus you wouldn't need dependency checking.
 > 

Thus qoth the man behind a fat pipe. I don't know about the original
poster's situation, but if you use a modem connection the dependency
checking is highly welcome to be a tad more selective with your
bandwidth.

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/

"local install"?

[Toni Mueller]

Hello,

after reading the docs on the web site and searching the list archive
on MARC a bit, there appears to be no "supported" way to install while
being offline. Eg. I will soon have a W2k box that I want to install on,
but certainly won't connect this box to the Internet to do it.

So my current guess is that I can download some stuff using eg. my Linux
workstation, put them on CD and then move the CD to the W2k box for
local installation there. Can anyone please confirm that? Can anyone
please tell me which version of setup.exe I should get to be able to
install from a local directory?

(Apart from that I always thought that doing online-installs is both
error-prone and insecure in most cases, and in general, a M$ disease -
why does RedHat do it?)


TIA!


Best,
--Toni++


--
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: "local install"?

[Brian Keener]

Toni Mueller wrote:
> So my current guess is that I can download some stuff using eg. my Linux
> workstation, put them on CD and then move the CD to the W2k box for
> local installation there. Can anyone please confirm that? Can anyone

Have you looked at the current version of setup.exe at all. It is accessible 
via http://www.cygwin.com/setup-snapshots/setup-20020225.exe.

When you run setup you get three choices for install - install from internet, 
download from internet and install from local directory.  First do the  
download and select an install directory. Then after you move to cd and have 
the new machine then run setup.exe and select install from local directory and 
select the new local download path where your cd is.  It should be that simple.





--
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/

"local install"?

[Markus Hoenicka]

Hi,

Toni Mueller writes:
 > So my current guess is that I can download some stuff using eg. my Linux
 > workstation, put them on CD and then move the CD to the W2k box for
 > local installation there. Can anyone please confirm that? Can anyone
 > please tell me which version of setup.exe I should get to be able to
 > install from a local directory?

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.

 > 
 > (Apart from that I always thought that doing online-installs is both
 > error-prone and insecure in most cases, and in general, a M$ disease -
 > why does RedHat do it?)
 > 

This is just not true. Debian's apt-get retrieves packages by default
from the web, and so do several RPM-based utilities. FreeBSD's ports
collection grabs the sources from the web by default, and precompiled
packages can also be installed from the web. It's certainly not a M$
disease but rather common practice.

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/

Re: "local install"?

[Randall R Schulz]

Markus,

At 07:31 2002-03-01, Markus Hoenicka wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Toni Mueller writes:
>  > So my current guess is that I can download some stuff using eg. my Linux
>  > workstation, put them on CD and then move the CD to the W2k box for
>  > local installation there. Can anyone please confirm that? Can anyone
>  > please tell me which version of setup.exe I should get to be able to
>  > install from a local directory?
>
>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


--
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: "local install"?

[Markus Hoenicka]

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/

Re: "local install"?

[Charles Wilson]

Randall R Schulz wrote:


> 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?"


Sure:  merging multiple "mirrors" into a seamless single-view 
installation.  (Or, merging an official mirror site + "Bob's archive of 
cool cygwin packages" + "My company's local cygwin ports" into a single, 
always-up-to-date single seamless installation).  Sure, you could 
manually download the packages you are interested in from all 27 sites, 
merge them into a single local repo, and then do 'install-from-local' -- 
but setup's "extra functionality" automatically handles that stuff for 
you -- just point-n-click.

--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: "local install"?

[Randall R Schulz]

Chuck,

I cannot get setup.exe to permit multiple selection of mirrors, so how is 
this magical seamless multi-mirror integration achieved? Can it be done 
without running setup.exe more than once? If not, what's the advantage over 
separate download and install?

Furthermore, why doesn't the multi-mirror technique, however effected, work 
for separated download and install, too?

Lastly, am I correct in believing that if one wants to download anything 
but not install it (source, e.g., or packages used by some at one's site 
but not by all) that separate download and install is the only way to 
accomplish this?

It still seems to me that control freaks are going to do as I do: Separate 
download and install.

Randall Schulz
Mountain View, CA USA


At 07:47 2002-03-01, Charles Wilson wrote:
>Randall R Schulz wrote:
>
>
>>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?"
>
>
>Sure:  merging multiple "mirrors" into a seamless single-view 
>installation.  (Or, merging an official mirror site + "Bob's archive of 
>cool cygwin packages" + "My company's local cygwin ports" into a single, 
>always-up-to-date single seamless installation).  Sure, you could manually 
>download the packages you are interested in from all 27 sites, merge them 
>into a single local repo, and then do 'install-from-local' -- but setup's 
>"extra functionality" automatically handles that stuff for you -- just 
>point-n-click.
>
>--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: "local install"?

[Charles Wilson]

Randall R Schulz wrote:

> Chuck,
> 
> I cannot get setup.exe to permit multiple selection of mirrors, so how 
> is this magical seamless multi-mirror integration achieved? Can it be 
> done without running setup.exe more than once? 


Yes -- you should be able to shift-click or ctrl-click select multiple 
items in the mirror list (assuming you are using the NEW setup snapshot 
20020225).

> If not, what's the 
> advantage over separate download and install?
> 
> Furthermore, why doesn't the multi-mirror technique, however effected, 
> work for separated download and install, too?


Because there is no 'remote site selection' step if you are not 
installing/downloading.  Sure, you could do a multi-site non-install 
download using setup, and then run setup in 'local dir' mode to install. 
  But setup is NOT meant to be an archiving/mirroring tool.  It is an 
installation tool.  If you want a local mirror -- USE a mirroring tool. 
  Good grief, wget has special mirroring options -- that's what I use...


> Lastly, am I correct in believing that if one wants to download anything 
> but not install it (source, e.g., or packages used by some at one's site 
> but not by all) that separate download and install is the only way to 
> accomplish this?


if the remote site provides a local version of setup.ini that accurately 
describes the contents of that remote site, then you should be able to 
select the (non-standard) site as a 'download location' and setup.exe 
will merge all selected sites, and download (or dl/install) the most 
recent copy of each selected package, from whatever location has the 
most recent version  (incl. packages from the non-standard site).


> It still seems to me that control freaks are going to do as I do: 
> Separate download and install.

Sure.  And some people (incl. me) still boot their linux boxen into 
console mode and only run X when required.  But that's still no reason 
not to develop xdm/gdm/kdm graphical logon managers.

Currently, there are no sites that provide cygwin packages in 
setup-approved format, that are not part of the official cygwin mirror 
system.  (Because until now, you couldn't use setup to install from 
ANYPLACE other than localdir or an *official* mirror site).  Now that 
you can enter custom URLs and do multi-site selection, I imagine that 
many uses will be found for the new functionality.

Perhaps the Emacs folks (NOT XEmacs -- they already have a different 
solution) will create a cygwin-setup dirtree once their cygwin port is 
complete.  Perhaps folks who have ported a package and want to make it 
available, but do NOT want to accept the maintainership responsibilities 
that go with *official* package inclusion, will create 
cygwin-setup-compatible distribution sites with custom setup.ini's. 
These are all great things, and are reason enough for the multi-site 
selection capability -- regardless of whether YOU actually use that 
particular feature.

--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: "local install"?

[Charles Wilson]

[please don't send me personal email related to cygwin.  Keep it on the 
list]

Randall R Schulz wrote:

> I tried the NEW setup. Let's say it has some problems still. I'll switch 
> when the kinks are worked out.


Okay, so when you said "how can I..." you meant "I know it's supposed to 
work, but it doesn't for me."  That's a bug report.  Thanks.


> Yes. We've been over this before. Setup.exe is still the best tool for 
> me to use to maintain my local Cygwin mirror, and I like wget, too. I 
> don't really see why you're so adamant about this. Why don't you remove 
> the "Download from Internet" option if you're so certain setup.exe 
> shouldn't be used to mirror Cygwin installable packages?


bootstrapping.  You can't use wget until after the initial install 
('cause you don't have a working cygwin environment yet, as required by 
wget.exe).

For personal use, yes -- you can do whatever you like.  But when the 
on-disk database format for downloaded tarballs changes, to support 
setup's *primary* goal -- the pseudo-mirroring behavior you like may be 
adversely affected.  This has happened in the new setup -- tarballs from 
sites are no longer stored in "<dir>/latest" and "<dir>/contrib", but 
are stored under "<dir>/http%%%mirror.site%path%/contrib" etc.  If you 
select multiple mirrors, the tarballs will be downloaded into disjoint 
contrib or latest directories, depending on where they came from.  This 
disrupts the mirroring behavior you like, but the disruption is nonfatal 
-- you can still do what you want, but it won't be pretty.  However, the 
behavioral changes are necessary to support the multisite capability.

Basically, the reason we've been harping that "setup is not a mirroring 
tool" is to preserve the freedom to change setup's on-disk database and 
operational behavior in order to support setup's *primary* goal.  If you 
want a local copy of the tarballs that looks just like 
ftp://mirrors.rcn.net/ -- setup may no longer do that for you -- or the 
way it does it may be different than you expect (e.g. the "extra" 
'http%%%site%path' directory level)

Using a REAL mirroring tool will insulate you from such surprises -- but 
if you're willing to deal with the changes in setup's behavior, good for 
you.


>>> It still seems to me that control freaks are going to do as I do: 
>>> Separate download and install.
>>
>>
>> Sure.  And some people (incl. me) still boot their linux boxen into 
>> console mode and only run X when required.  But that's still no reason 
>> not to develop xdm/gdm/kdm graphical logon managers.
> 
> 
> I don't believe that analogy is particularly apt. I'm not smitten with 
> GUIs and I still don't believe a good IDE exists. If the bulk of the 
> (vocal) S/W developers were to be believed, syntax coloring and 
> auto-completion were the end-all of programming support, but I find them 
> unhelpful and undesirable. "In the beginning was the command line..." I 
> guess I'm still at the beginning, in some ways.


I guess I misunderstood your complaint.  Sorry.

--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: "local install"?

[Randall R Schulz]

At 16:33 2002-03-01, you wrote:
>[please don't send me personal email related to cygwin.  Keep it on the list]


Just following your lead.


--
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: "local install"?

[Charles Wilson]

Randall R Schulz wrote:

> At 16:33 2002-03-01, you wrote:
> 
>> [please don't send me personal email related to cygwin.  Keep it on 
>> the list]
> 
> 
> 
> Just following your lead.


Huh?  Wha...???  Oh, I see.  My earlier messages were "reply to all" -- 
which meant they were sent (a) directly to you, and also (b) copied to 
the list.  Opinions may vary, but personally I consider that to fall 
within the definition of "keeping it on the list".  But that's just my 
(N-S) humble opinion.  Sorry for the confusion and inconvenience.

--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: "local install"?

[Randall R Schulz]

Chuck,

At 16:33 2002-03-01, you wrote:
>[please don't send me personal email related to cygwin.  Keep it on the list]
>
>Randall R Schulz wrote:
>
>>I tried the NEW setup. Let's say it has some problems still. I'll switch 
>>when the kinks are worked out.
>
>
>Okay, so when you said "how can I..." you meant "I know it's supposed to 
>work, but it doesn't for me."  That's a bug report.  Thanks.

Let me clarify. Once the NEW setup.exe violated some of my expectations 
(like knowing enough not to download the same packages over and over again 
even though they are right there where it put them the last time) I stopped 
using it. So my attempt to shift- or CTRL- click in the mirrors list was 
done with setup.exe vers. 2.125.2.10


>>Yes. We've been over this before. Setup.exe is still the best tool for me 
>>to use to maintain my local Cygwin mirror, and I like wget, too. I don't 
>>really see why you're so adamant about this. Why don't you remove the 
>>"Download from Internet" option if you're so certain setup.exe shouldn't 
>>be used to mirror Cygwin installable packages?
>
>
>bootstrapping.  You can't use wget until after the initial install ('cause 
>you don't have a working cygwin environment yet, as required by wget.exe).
>
>For personal use, yes -- you can do whatever you like.  But when the 
>on-disk database format for downloaded tarballs changes, to support 
>setup's *primary* goal -- the pseudo-mirroring behavior you like may be 
>adversely affected.  This has happened in the new setup -- tarballs from 
>sites are no longer stored in "<dir>/latest" and "<dir>/contrib", but are 
>stored under "<dir>/http%%%mirror.site%path%/contrib" etc.  If you select 
>multiple mirrors, the tarballs will be downloaded into disjoint contrib or 
>latest directories, depending on where they came from.  This disrupts the 
>mirroring behavior you like, but the disruption is nonfatal -- you can 
>still do what you want, but it won't be pretty.  However, the behavioral 
>changes are necessary to support the multisite capability.
>
>Basically, the reason we've been harping that "setup is not a mirroring 
>tool" is to preserve the freedom to change setup's on-disk database and 
>operational behavior in order to support setup's *primary* goal.  If you 
>want a local copy of the tarballs that looks just like 
>ftp://mirrors.rcn.net/ -- setup may no longer do that for you -- or the 
>way it does it may be different than you expect (e.g. the "extra" 
>'http%%%site%path' directory level)
>
>Using a REAL mirroring tool will insulate you from such surprises -- but 
>if you're willing to deal with the changes in setup's behavior, good for you.

This I don't understand. If Setup doesn't locally maintain the files it 
downloads as a "mirror" of the site from which it downloaded them, then how 
does wget or any other mirroring tool serve me better? If I mirror using 
wget or FTP Voyager will I be able to install? I surely don't want 300 
megabytes of files for their own sake or just to be able to say I have 
them. I want a local package set that I can use to install. Since a local 
script execution phase has been added to the installer, manual installation 
is, it seems, not an option at all. I've never wanted to do so, but the 
point is that we depend on setup.exe to do installation, so any manner of 
retrieving the files to install that is not directly usably by setup.exe 
for the installation per se is not very useful.

I'm a software developer, too. I fully understand and accept the need to 
keep one's options open. Ideally this is done by careful wording of specs. 
I guess that doesn't really apply here, since we're not talking about an 
API or any other highly formal (or very complex) specification. 
Nonetheless, I'm more than happy accommodate such hedges and reserved and / 
or (pre-) announced behavior changes (e.g., removal of the old 
interpreatation of the "//" file name prefix in the Cygwin DLL). It would 
be nice to know, of course, what the anticipated change is. Just saying 
"Here's a feature. It's there in plain sight. Please don't use it." without 
adding "lest you risk ..." is kind of hard to accept.


>>>>It still seems to me that control freaks are going to do as I do: 
>>>>Separate download and install.
>>>
>>>
>>>Sure.  And some people (incl. me) still boot their linux boxen into 
>>>console mode and only run X when required.  But that's still no reason 
>>>not to develop xdm/gdm/kdm graphical logon managers.
>>
>>I don't believe that analogy is particularly apt. I'm not smitten with 
>>GUIs and I still don't believe a good IDE exists. If the bulk of the 
>>(vocal) S/W developers were to be believed, syntax coloring and 
>>auto-completion were the end-all of programming support, but I find them 
>>unhelpful and undesirable. "In the beginning was the command line..." I 
>>guess I'm still at the beginning, in some ways.
>
>
>I guess I misunderstood your complaint.  Sorry.
>
>--Chuck


Randall Schulz
Mountain View, CA USA


--
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: "local install"?

[Robert Collins]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Randall R Schulz" <rrschulz@cris.com>
> >Randall R Schulz wrote:
> >
> >>I tried the NEW setup. Let's say it has some problems still. I'll
switch
> >>when the kinks are worked out.
> >
> >
> >Okay, so when you said "how can I..." you meant "I know it's supposed
to
> >work, but it doesn't for me."  That's a bug report.  Thanks.
>
> Let me clarify. Once the NEW setup.exe violated some of my
expectations
> (like knowing enough not to download the same packages over and over
again
> even though they are right there where it put them the last time) I
stopped
> using it. So my attempt to shift- or CTRL- click in the mirrors list
was
> done with setup.exe vers. 2.125.2.10

It did *what* ? How do you reproduce it? Where they (a) from the same
mirror, or where you (b) chopping and changing mirrors with each run? If
(b) then that is somewhat-expected, and future enhancements will address
this. However, the goal is that you select *all* the mirrors you want to
download from and then just use those again and again. If (a) then tell
me *exactly* what you do to make it happen, and send the .log and
.log.full from a couple of runs please.


> >Using a REAL mirroring tool will insulate you from such surprises --
but
> >if you're willing to deal with the changes in setup's behavior, good
for you.
>
> This I don't understand. If Setup doesn't locally maintain the files
it
> downloads as a "mirror" of the site from which it downloaded them,
then how
> does wget or any other mirroring tool serve me better? If I mirror
using
> wget or FTP Voyager will I be able to install? I surely don't want 300
> megabytes of files for their own sake or just to be able to say I have
> them. I want a local package set that I can use to install. Since a
local
> script execution phase has been added to the installer, manual
installation
> is, it seems, not an option at all. I've never wanted to do so, but
the
> point is that we depend on setup.exe to do installation, so any manner
of
> retrieving the files to install that is not directly usably by
setup.exe
> for the installation per se is not very useful.

You're more than welcome to help create the command line installer. One
patch has been submitted, and feedback given, but no futher news has
been heard. Likewise I've put qutie some effort towards making the
engine of setup be able to run under unix, and when that is combined
with command line parameters, there will exist a mirroring tool that
understands setup.ini's and can run from a script etc. etc. And yes,
setup.exe will do the right thing if you use wget or FTP voyager -
always. We won't break that.

> I'm a software developer, too. I fully understand and accept the need
to
> keep one's options open. Ideally this is done by careful wording of
specs.
> I guess that doesn't really apply here, since we're not talking about
an
> API or any other highly formal (or very complex) specification.
> Nonetheless, I'm more than happy accommodate such hedges and reserved
and /
> or (pre-) announced behavior changes (e.g., removal of the old
> interpreatation of the "//" file name prefix in the Cygwin DLL). It
would
> be nice to know, of course, what the anticipated change is. Just
saying
> "Here's a feature. It's there in plain sight. Please don't use it."
without
> adding "lest you risk ..." is kind of hard to accept.

I've not said that :}. Chuck didn't say that either. Paraphrasing what
he said : 'don't expect setup.exe to behave like a mirroring tool'. And
'don't depend on the setup.exe local cache dir structure to remain the
same'.

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: "local install"?

[Randall R Schulz]

Rob,

[ Our mails are crossing, so just know that I've read both the post I'm 
replying to directly here and the subsequent amplification. I think we are 
mostly just agreeing, albeit loudly. ]


>It did *what* ? How do you reproduce it?

Grumble. That must be an even-day bug, because when I went to try to 
reproduce it just now, the mis-behavior was gone.

Here's what I remember. About a half-dozen package updates had been 
announced since I last updated, so I decided to use them as a test case for 
the new setup.exe. It (NEW setup.exe) downloaded the bulk of those packages 
(including their source bundles) and then reported an error (a size 
mis-match, if I recall correctly) and offered to download again. I say OK 
and it downloaded ALL of those packages again, this time without error. 
Then, for whatever reason, I decided to run through the download again from 
the top, and NEW setup.exe it listed all those packages as requiring download.

All this was with my old trusty favorite mirror: http://mirrors.rcn.net.

At that point, I went back to the previous setup.exe (2.125.2.10) and 
downloaded (again) and installed the latest package updates.

Sorry to alarm you. Sadly, at this point all I can say is that it could 
have been cockpit error (occasionally I forget to switch the radio buttons 
to one of "Download ..." or "Install from Local Directory") or it could 
have been a glitch in setup.exe itself.

If more details surface, I'll pass them along.


More below...


At 17:06 2002-03-01, Robert Collins wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Randall R Schulz" <rrschulz@cris.com>
> > >Randall R Schulz wrote:
> > >
> > >>I tried the NEW setup. Let's say it has some problems still. I'll
>switch
> > >>when the kinks are worked out.
> > >
> > >
> > >Okay, so when you said "how can I..." you meant "I know it's supposed
>to
> > >work, but it doesn't for me."  That's a bug report.  Thanks.
> >
> > Let me clarify. Once the NEW setup.exe violated some of my expectations
> > (like knowing enough not to download the same packages over and over again
> > even though they are right there where it put them the last time) I stopped
> > using it. So my attempt to shift- or CTRL- click in the mirrors list was
> > done with setup.exe vers. 2.125.2.10
>
>It did *what* ? How do you reproduce it? Where they (a) from the same 
>mirror, or where you (b) chopping and changing mirrors with each run? If 
>(b) then that is somewhat-expected, and future enhancements will address 
>this. However, the goal is that you select *all* the mirrors you want to 
>download from and then just use those again and again. If (a) then tell me 
>*exactly* what you do to make it happen, and send the .log and .log.full 
>from a couple of runs please.
>
>
> > >Using a REAL mirroring tool will insulate you from such surprises -- but
> > >if you're willing to deal with the changes in setup's behavior, good 
> for you.
> >
> > This I don't understand. If Setup doesn't locally maintain the files it
> > downloads as a "mirror" of the site from which it downloaded them, then how
> > does wget or any other mirroring tool serve me better? If I mirror using
> > wget or FTP Voyager will I be able to install? I surely don't want 300
> > megabytes of files for their own sake or just to be able to say I have
> > them. I want a local package set that I can use to install. Since a local
> > script execution phase has been added to the installer, manual installation
> > is, it seems, not an option at all. I've never wanted to do so, but the
> > point is that we depend on setup.exe to do installation, so any manner of
> > retrieving the files to install that is not directly usably by setup.exe
> > for the installation per se is not very useful.
>
>You're more than welcome to help create the command line installer. One 
>patch has been submitted, and feedback given, but no futher news has been 
>heard. Likewise I've put qutie some effort towards making the engine of 
>setup be able to run under unix, and when that is combined with command 
>line parameters, there will exist a mirroring tool that understands 
>setup.ini's and can run from a script etc. etc. And yes, setup.exe will do 
>the right thing if you use wget or FTP voyager - always. We won't break that.

That's all very nice, but I'm actually completely contented with what we 
have now. Let me be clear that I have no problems or complaints with setup 
(old or new, with the now retracted exception described above). I'm very 
happy with what you (all) have given us. Considering I started using Cygwin 
with b18, you can understand that I have a fair perspective on the 
improvements, including but not limited to installation support, over the 
past several years. It's just that I have a hard time accepting the 
repeated admonition that setup.exe is "not a mirroring tool" when clearly 
it mirrors Cygwin just fine, for my purposes. I cannot see why one would 
use it for any other purpose, and perhaps that's what you're trying to 
forestall.

I certainly do reach for wget for all my general-purpose mirroring and 
Internet retrieval--I love it!


> > I'm a software developer, too. I fully understand and accept the need to
> > keep one's options open. Ideally this is done by careful wording of specs.
> > I guess that doesn't really apply here, since we're not talking about an
> > API or any other highly formal (or very complex) specification.
> > Nonetheless, I'm more than happy accommodate such hedges and reserved and /
> > or (pre-) announced behavior changes (e.g., removal of the old
> > interpreatation of the "//" file name prefix in the Cygwin DLL). It would
> > be nice to know, of course, what the anticipated change is. Just saying
> > "Here's a feature. It's there in plain sight. Please don't use it." without
> > adding "lest you risk ..." is kind of hard to accept.
>
>I've not said that :}. Chuck didn't say that either. Paraphrasing what he 
>said : 'don't expect setup.exe to behave like a mirroring tool'. And 
>'don't depend on the setup.exe local cache dir structure to remain the same'.

OK, but if the "local cache dir" is not a mirror, as is commonly 
understood, then telling me to use a tool such as wget that will produce a 
conventional "mirror image" is asking me not to be able to install.

Either setup.exe "mirrors" the download site, or a conventional "mirroring" 
tool is unusable as a substitute for the download functionality of 
setup.exe. I don't see how it can be both.


>Rob


Randall Schulz
Mountain View, CA USA


--
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: "local install"?

[Robert Collins]

Sorry about the length, just wanted to be really clear...
===
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Wilson" <cwilson@ece.gatech.edu>

> Basically, the reason we've been harping that "setup is not a
mirroring
> tool" is to preserve the freedom to change setup's on-disk database
and
> operational behavior in order to support setup's *primary* goal.  If
you
> want a local copy of the tarballs that looks just like
> ftp://mirrors.rcn.net/ -- setup may no longer do that for you -- or
the
> way it does it may be different than you expect (e.g. the "extra"
> 'http%%%site%path' directory level)

The reason *I've* been harping about setup != mirror tool is that mirror
tools have a *heap* of functionality that setup doesn't, and in my
opinion should not have in the
download-and-bootstrap-and-maintain-cygwin GUI.

I.e.: regexp filters on packages to get, grabbing source as well as
binaries, grabbing all versions available at once, grabbing on a
schedule, and probably more.

Setup's goal is quite simple: Install and update a cygwin net
distribution in a non-confusing manner that is satisfactory to the
broadest possible group of cygwin users, in a reliable fashion.

To this end we have things like:
* Categories (too many packages)
* dependencies (foo does not work without bar)
* a local cache dir (Why does it always download X - I simply want to
reinstall)
* in-place file replacement (I upgraded ssh, but it had an error on
sshd.exe, and now sshd won't start)
* Default to a bare minimum installed (I've a low bandwidth
connection..)

I will very happily change the local dir structure irrespective of folk
using setup as a mirroring tool or not - keeping forward compatability
(but not backwards) is easy.

What I won't do is accept "Setup won't let me automagically grab all the
source tarballs shown in the GUI" as a bug report. Likewise "Setup
defaults to not installing gcc" is not IMO a valid bug report, because
it's easy to merge in a setup.ini to add packages to Base or Misc, but
it's much harder to stop packages auto-installing if they are in base or
misc.

So in short, anyone who wants to use setup to maintain a local cache to
install from *should do this*. But don't expect it to be useable as a
run-at-midnight tool to automatically update said cache.

I will happily support endeavours to create such a tool, that leverages
the setup.exe code base and lives in cinstall.

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/