Mail Archives: cygwin/2010/04/05/15:12:11
On 05/04/2010 19:39, wefwef wefwef wrote:
> You also can't see obvious flaws that are right in front of your face,
> even after they have been pointed out to you several times.
Sigh, there's that word "obvious" again, as if the way you perceive things
is absolute and objective and definitively correct and anyone who feels
differently is just wrong. We agreed, I thought, that there were some "minor
cosmetic flaws"; you have now, finally, admitted - well, you haven't actually
admitted it, but you've stopped denying it - that it does indeed show you
whether a package is already installed or not; and the only remaining issue
that you've mentioned is that changing the local package directory setting
doesn't do what you expected it to, and you think it should, and repeatedly
described the correct behaviour as "a bug".
Did I omit anything?
> There's plenty of other people saying that the cygwin installer is
> junk - it's just that if you ignore everyone, you will come to the
> conclusion that it is perfect as you obviously have.
Digging through the archives and finding years-old complaints about bugs in
the installer is not an adequate way of informing yourself about how it is
these days.
>> 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.
I reiterate this point. Still no actual bug report, nothing I can act on or do.
> No I haven't made any mistakes,
How would you know? That's kind of the thing about mistakes, you often
don't know you've made them because you intended to do the right thing.
Of course, you could always post those log files.
> I've stated what is wrong with the
> cygwin installer - it has a bad user interface with obvious design
> flaws, and it doesn't produce consistent results.
And I've pointed out that your expectation of "consistent" results was
invalid, so that leaves us with just the user interface issues, right?
> I also found out
> that cygwin don't care about quality, and to expect poor standards -
> as you've made it perfectly clear.
That's a bare-faced lie. I said if there is a bug, I'll fix it. When I say
I'll do something, I do it.
> Setup.exe doesn't work perfectly at all.
You've asserted this but never shown it.
> I have zero confidence that
> it will produce the same results next time I run it.
Of course it won't "produce the same results" next time you run it. There
will be different packages to update. You really think it should re-download
the installed packages every time it runs? Given the same set of options and
choices, and run in the same environment, setup.exe gives deterministically
reproducible results; the problem is that you aren't running it in the same
environment every time.
Still no log files, I see.
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 -