Mail Archives: cygwin/2002/03/01/10:48:13
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 DOT Hoenicka AT uth DOT tmc DOT edu]
Sent: 01 March 2002 15:51
To: Randall R Schulz; cygwin AT cygwin DOT 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/
- Raw text -