Mail Archives: cygwin/2010/01/28/16:20:08
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 02:54:30PM -0600, Jeremy Bopp wrote:
>On 1/28/2010 2:15 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 02:02:44PM -0600, Jeremy Bopp wrote:
>>> On 1/28/2010 12:20 PM, Heath Kehoe wrote:
>>>> Anyway, for now I'm going to just comment out the call to note() at
>>>> install.cc:295 so that my users can do installations without having to
>>>> dismiss that popup 52 times.
>>>
>>> Rather than build your own copy of setup.exe while you wait for this
>>> defect to be fixed, why not use the --packages option for setup.exe to
>>> select the set of packages you know you need from the command line? If
>>> your users would have difficulty with that, you could write a simple
>>> batch file to wrap the setup.exe invocation.
>>
>> OTOH, modifying source code and rolling your own copy is precisely why
>> Free Software project exists in the first place. IMO, this is a great
>> way of dealing with this kind of situation. I wish more people were
>> willing to look at source code.
>
>True enough, and hopefully Heath will send along the patches to fix the
>problem. It just seems in this case that distributing a locally built
>setup.exe is a bit like hammering a finishing nail with a sledge hammer.
> Yeah, it works, but it takes far more effort than required to do the
>job. :-)
The alternative being to notify a presumably large user base of unknown
technical competency about a change in procedure? Telling someone to
"just use this binary" seems a lot simpler to me.
cgf
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
- Raw text -