Mail Archives: cygwin/2002/06/07/11:27:53
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
> [mailto:cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com] On Behalf Of Max Bowsher
> Sent: Saturday, 8 June 2002 1:23 AM
> To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
> Subject: Re: Crashing setup.exe
>
>
> robertc <robert DOT collins AT syncretize DOT net> wrote:
> > No. One SHOULD NOT TOUCH the cygwin packages directory.
> Setup reserves
> > the right to do -anything- it wants to that dir, including
> zapping the
> > content, moving files etc etc.
>
> Setup has the right to use its package cache as it sees fit,
> but users of setup
> have the right to manage setup's use of their hard disc. If
> everyone treated
> package directories opaquely, they would never purge old
> versions of packages,
> and sooner or later, we would all have 10GB package
> directories. The setup's
> handling of its cache should be like the rest of cygwin - if
> you don't like it,
> make a clean, debugged patch to change it, and provide a good
> argument to why it
> should be applied.
Agreed.
> I appreciate you are trying to prevent aimless discussion,
> but setup's cache
> _cannot_ be a black box.
I realize this. In fact it's not - and I've not suggested it be a black
box... There are other bits of software - like the setup cache cleaner -
that are very useful. They are intimately linked with setup's treatment
of the cache however, and will have to change as it changes. What I'm
trying to avoid is setup.exe's users getting the impression that there
is any manipulation needed for setup to operate correctly.
Finally, until 'someone' has time to document the exact use of the
cache, it will be a black box to Joe User, until Joe User reads the
code.
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/
- Raw text -