Mail Archives: cygwin/2010/04/05/14:06:40
On 05/04/2010 18:27, wefwef wefwef wrote:
>>>> You also proposed adding a feature it already has, a column telling you
>>>> whether a package is already installed or not. This tells me that you are not
>>>> calmly and dispassionately observing what is in front of your eyes.
>>> It doesn't have a column dedicated for this purpose, that column is
>>> used also to instruct the installer what to do.
>> You are looking at the wrong column.
>>
>> Look at the column immediately to its left.
>>
>> The one labelled "Current".
>>
>> The one that shows you the currently-installed version of the package, or
>> nothing if it is not currently installed.
>>
>> Perhaps you could get that two-year old you mentioned earlier to point it
>> out to you.
> Thanks, but it seems I already have.
Haha, very funny, but that doesn't make you any less wrong. You were unable
to see something that was right in front of your face. Given that, it's
perfectly reasonable for me not to just take your other claims at face value
but need some kind of verification, like steps by which to reproduce any
supposed bug.
>>> If that's the case, then why does it offer to save packages without
>>> installing - it obviously was intended as a way of downloading and
>>> installing later.
>> Yes, exactly. It is a way of downloading, for later installation, the exact
>> same set of packages it would download and install at the same time if you ran
>> it in install-from-internet mode.
>>
>> Not some arbitrary different set of packages. You made that bit up.
>>
>>> The fact is that the obvious way it should work,
>> You're just elevating your own mistaken assumptions to the status of
>> "obvious" truths. You need to get over yourself.
> Wow, you just can't help throwing insults around - well done, you're
> great at that at least.
I thought after your vitriolic post about "so obvious a two-year old could
see it" that you were happy with this style of communication. Regardless,
claiming that your mistaken assumption is "obvious" and everyone else in the
world is wrong for not seeing things your way is pretty much the definition of
needing to get over yourself.
I note that in this entire post you haven't addressed one issue of
substance. All the points that I made are unrebutted, and still relevant,
regardless of how you feel about the tone in which I delivered them.
>> Still no log files, I see. It's almost as if you didn't want to demonstrate
>> that there is a bug or have it fixed. I promise you, if you've found a bug, I
>> will indeed write the code necessary to fix it, but you have to be able to
>> show it to me.
>
> Dave, thanks, but cygwin obviously doesn't want my input, and I don't
> want your help.
Went back and looked at the log files and realised that you did choose the
wrong directory on the local package dir screen after all, did you? Now
you're manufacturing an argument so that you can throw a dramatic strop and
storm out without having to admit that you made a mistake?
Well, never mind. You've got the working minimal cygwin installation you
wanted now, and you know how to do it again, and setup.exe works perfectly
well to do what you want, so it is indeed true that you don't need my help.
cheers,
DaveK
--
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 -