X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:subject:to:references:from:cc:reply-to
	:message-id:date:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=mj8r/Eq6Ud+veImk
	fuLGlpLukdxwp6hoV8JpwLBUBKxMXKx6oPDz7kj4+8gJkkunG1neVUQ163vh/BHk
	X9LV1FAfPfjyECVQ/quDOsLqO3Ix1XxTbShELyldPQgDfHWxIP4L2JURSgSbrTYp
	DtQIneLDl+qnTfUD3Xgr4ECg2C0=
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:subject:to:references:from:cc:reply-to
	:message-id:date:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=QL+ML6ngV3/PVym+Jzx+lS
	BbXZM=; b=uXYDsadaWdK+EFPptCnM7f4vpQJQDAMZ4FWFFdhiEm7cuyc7psFDNC
	oOgkcO3jPZmXKhfJLUvM1cyqo/bq0aG0WhTvdAb49fis6SBpSyvs3KRjsCR820/A
	GFIrvSdd7HB9V7xfrk41cTiwtO3le1LWB/a8e+Q+alCoeJS/B/70c=
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Authentication-Results:	sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Spam-SWARE-Status:	No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=coupled, propagate, hide, crazy
X-HELO:	rgout01.bt.lon5.cpcloud.co.uk
X-OWM-Source-IP:	109.158.108.34 (GB)
X-OWM-Env-Sender:	jonturney AT btinternet DOT com
X-VadeSecure-score:	verdict=clean score=0/300, class=clean
X-SNCR-VADESECURE:	CLEAN
Subject:	Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: setup (2.895)
To:	The Cygwin Mailing List <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
References:	<announce DOT f0bfb72f-b756-2b74-a73d-ea32cccf116c AT dronecode DOT org DOT uk> <CY4PR22MB07739A67A4DBAAE957782BFAA79C0 AT CY4PR22MB0773 DOT namprd22 DOT prod DOT outlook DOT com>
From:	Jon Turney <jon DOT turney AT dronecode DOT org DOT uk>
Cc:	Tony Kelman <tony AT kelman DOT net>
Reply-To:	The Cygwin Mailing List <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Message-ID:	<9b65b2eb-cb9b-9408-2845-c64b9afbd929@dronecode.org.uk>
Date:	Sat, 2 Feb 2019 20:10:52 +0000
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.0
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<CY4PR22MB07739A67A4DBAAE957782BFAA79C0@CY4PR22MB0773.namprd22.prod.outlook.com>

On 18/01/2019 23:58, Tony Kelman wrote:
>> - Drag setup into the 1990s, by replacing the custom-drawn package
>> chooser with a ListView common control.
>>
>> -- Use standard UI elements to choose an action to take on a package or
>> category, rather than the weird UX of clicking to cycle around a list of
>> options of undisclosed length.
>>
>> -- Behaviour change: previously, a category action only affected
>> packages which matched any name search filter applied.  Now all packages
>> contained by the category are affected.
> 
> I noticed a behavior change that felt like a regression to me, could you
> clarify whether or not it falls under the intended new behavior?
> 
> With previous versions of setup you could use the category view and select
> "Install" for the "All" category and get a (slightly crazy, not-recommended)
> conflict-free package resolution to install.
> 
> With 2.895, now the selection for the "All" package applies even to the
> default-hidden "_obsolete" category, resulting in over 100 conflicts
> between obsolete packages and their successors. Should selections on the
> "All" category follow the setting of the "Hide obsolete packages" checkbox?
> 
> I'm not sure if this is how older setup versions worked, but it might make
> sense to not propagate selections from "All" to the "_obsolete" category
> when that checkbox is enabled.

Thanks for reporting this issue.

As mentioned, previously the propagation was (accidentally?) coupled to 
the visibility of packages, whereas now it applies to all packages 
(including those invisible because they are in the obsolete category)

So yeah, the behaviour of "All" category now is not very useful, and 
needs fixing, probably in the way you suggest.

--
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 -