Mail Archives: cygwin/2004/08/18/06:54:05
"Larry Hall" scribbled on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 1:10 AM:
> At 04:32 PM 8/17/2004, Hannu wrote:
>> zzzzzz-zzzzz AT cygwin DOT zzz i.e. Larry Hall, wrote:
>>> At 05:39 AM 8/17/2004, you <as quoted by Larry - "Fergus"> wrote:
>>
>> -zNIPz here and there-
>>>> I know we can install Cygwin wherever we like (default c:\Cygwin\
>>>> but it could be c:\MyOS\ or g:\Cygwin\ or even, after overcoming an
>>>> objection, the root directory g:\). But has Cygwin its own
>>>> expectations of what else is where?
>>
>>> Cygwin imposes no requirements on the location of the Windows
>>> installation. Whatever the problem is with this failure, it is
>>> installation specific and not endemic to Cygwin.
>>
>> -WJM-mode=OFF-
>
> FWIW, I never turned on the WJM mode.
>
>
>> While there _should_ be no requirements, one has to be realistic and
>> recognize this possibly beeing a setup - or postinstall - malfunction
>> triggered by the "nonstandard install location".
>
>
> That would be a bug. But since Fergus was asking whether Cygwin
> "expected" certain things in certain locations, the answer to that
> would be "no".
Of course, that's the intention. Nothing said about that.
> If it weren't "no", then anyone installing Cygwin to
> a drive other than C: would see problems. The lack of email to this
> list on the matter is just one indication that Cygwin has no
> expectations of where things live.
The lack of messages might just as well be an indication of the number of
people actually trying this particular thing.
SIDENOTE: I've seen situations where a person attempting something similar
just gives up immediately, without any questions. Just the comment "Crap! I
don't wanna bother more with it!". No help requested even though there are
several people knowledgable enough standing within arms reach.
I've seen it not just once - and I must admit; I've done the same myself!
(Download free/shareware/whatever software; installation doesn't work ->
scrap it, try another similarily promising package)
> The code itself would be another.
Hmm... I don't get this; is it a back reference to the "bug"-thing above?
> ;-)
Ahh, I *understand* this! ;-)
> If a postinstall script is making some such assumptions, I'd expect we
> would've heard quite a bit about that here too (or at
> cygwin-apps).
Not all malfunctions/mishaps get reported - a report requires some time and
effort to put through; not to mention - the "WJM" attitude, at display
relatively often, plays part in this. Many people won't stand up against it.
It is desirable to have *good* problem reports, but when you request higher
quality you also filter away some. It is a dilemma.
FYI: My current employment is all about customer support; *I* _must_ handle
those imprecise and badly phrased problem reports too; eventually the real
problem gets revealed through the linguistic mist. (many .ro/.ru/.ba/.tw top
domains emerge here -i.e. ppl not so used to english)
> But if someone does find such a bug, that's certainly something that
> should be reported to cygwin-apps.
Yep.
/Hannu E K Nevalainen, B.Sc. EE - 59+16.37'N, 17+12.60'E --72-->
** mailing list preference; please keep replies on list **
-- printf("LocalTime: UTC+%02d\n",(DST)? 2:1); --
--END OF MESSAGE--
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -