Setup and dependencies

Setup and dependencies

[fergus]

In between the two extremes of "basic" and "complete" installations of
Cygwin, setup allows the user to make their own selection from what is on
offer. As a simple example of what can happen, it is possible to select man,
and de-select groff. After installation is completed, any attempt to use man
will fail, because (as is made explicit in setup.ini) man requires groff.

I can see that with 228 packages to choose from (today) the dependence graph
becomes moderately complex: but are setup.exe and setup.ini presently
intended to supervise this aspect of a user's installation and prevent such
"illegal" selections? (In which case I think this is a failure.)

(I can also see that setup.ini offers all necessary relevant information to
the user, who might reasonably be expected to put some intelligent effort
into achieving a sufficient choice for glitch-free behaviours. But it's
precisely because this becomes so difficult so quickly, that automated
invisible supervision from setup would be so much appreciated.)

Thank you.

Fergus


--
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: Setup and dependencies

[Igor Pechtchanski]

On Thu, 22 Aug 2002 fergus@bonhard.uklinux.net wrote:

> In between the two extremes of "basic" and "complete" installations of
> Cygwin, setup allows the user to make their own selection from what is on
> offer. As a simple example of what can happen, it is possible to select man,
> and de-select groff. After installation is completed, any attempt to use man
> will fail, because (as is made explicit in setup.ini) man requires groff.
>
> I can see that with 228 packages to choose from (today) the dependence graph
> becomes moderately complex: but are setup.exe and setup.ini presently
> intended to supervise this aspect of a user's installation and prevent such
> "illegal" selections? (In which case I think this is a failure.)
>
> (I can also see that setup.ini offers all necessary relevant information to
> the user, who might reasonably be expected to put some intelligent effort
> into achieving a sufficient choice for glitch-free behaviours. But it's
> precisely because this becomes so difficult so quickly, that automated
> invisible supervision from setup would be so much appreciated.)
>
> Thank you.
> Fergus

One minor comment is that "automated invisible supervision" would surely
be wrong, as people may, for example, want to install some package by
means other than cygwin setup (e.g., by compiling from the source cvs).
However, a dependence check and a warning to make sure the user knows what
he's doing before installing the packages would be a nice addition.
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_		pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		igor@watson.ibm.com
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		Igor Pechtchanski
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

It took the computational power of three Commodore 64s to fly to the moon.
It takes a 486 to run Windows 95.  Something is wrong here. -- SC sig file


--
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: Setup and dependencies

[Soren A]

"lhall@pop.ma.ultranet.com" <lhall@pop.ma.ultranet.com> wrote around 22
Aug 2002 news:157240-220028422144326981@M2W086.mail2web.com about %s: 

> Setup is not meant to limit the user's options with their selections.
> It insures that dependencies for a package that the user selects also
> get selected.  It doesn't automatically unselect packages which depend
> on a package unselected.  I'm sure this could be a mode in which setup
> would work but it would be a more limiting mode which some others
> wouldn't want.  So it would be an option only IMO (perhaps the
> default??)  Anyway, if you're interested in seeing this happen, a
> patch will help make your point if you're so inclined.  Otherwise, you
> can certainly just wait and see if your query/suggestion inspires
> someone else to take up such a cause. 

My 2 <unit-value-coinage> input as a user is that I would not want to
see setup automatically select or unselect anything which I have
explicitly marked either way. IOW, I agree with the above principle and
feel it is important to keep setup working in such a way that it doesn't
by default assume it is smarter than the user. As an optional mode of
operation which the user has to clearly, knowingly, explicitly choose to
invoke, sure, that would be fine. 

Regards,
   Soren A



--
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: Setup and dependencies

[lhall]

Setup is not meant to limit the user's options with their selections.
It insures that dependencies for a package that the user selects also
get selected.  It doesn't automatically unselect packages which depend
on a package unselected.  I'm sure this could be a mode in which setup
would work but it would be a more limiting mode which some others wouldn't 
want.  So it would be an option only IMO (perhaps the default??)  Anyway,
if you're interested in seeing this happen, a patch will help make your
point if you're so inclined.  Otherwise, you can certainly just wait and
see if your query/suggestion inspires someone else to take up such a cause.

Larry

Original Message:
-----------------
From:  fergus@bonhard.uklinux.net
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 14:02:31 +0100
To: cygwin@cygwin.com, fergus@bonhard.uklinux.net
Subject: Setup and dependencies


In between the two extremes of "basic" and "complete" installations of
Cygwin, setup allows the user to make their own selection from what is on
offer. As a simple example of what can happen, it is possible to select man,
and de-select groff. After installation is completed, any attempt to use man
will fail, because (as is made explicit in setup.ini) man requires groff.

I can see that with 228 packages to choose from (today) the dependence graph
becomes moderately complex: but are setup.exe and setup.ini presently
intended to supervise this aspect of a user's installation and prevent such
"illegal" selections? (In which case I think this is a failure.)

(I can also see that setup.ini offers all necessary relevant information to
the user, who might reasonably be expected to put some intelligent effort
into achieving a sufficient choice for glitch-free behaviours. But it's
precisely because this becomes so difficult so quickly, that automated
invisible supervision from setup would be so much appreciated.)

Thank you.

Fergus


--
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/


--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.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/