Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender:	cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID:	<01b801c1bd23$0a440720$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
From:	"Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To:	<cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
References:	<015a01c1b886$622561b0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <VA DOT 00000a82 DOT 00e1d48b AT thesoftwaresource DOT com> <002501c1b8e4$9754b5d0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <20020219040513 DOT GA372 AT redhat DOT com> <009701c1b8fc$a8eedba0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <20020219044601 DOT GA597 AT redhat DOT com>
Subject:	Re: Setup
Date:	Sun, 24 Feb 2002 22:04:32 +1100
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-OriginalArrivalTime:	24 Feb 2002 11:03:36.0632 (UTC) FILETIME=[E842E380:01C1BD22]

===
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf AT redhat DOT com>

> >Otherwise we need a *new* mechanism to tell setup.exe when a package
is
> >replaced from current to test - that is that no test version exists,
and
> >that when moving to test, the current version should be removed.
>
> Ok.  We need a new mechanism.  We also need a mechanism that says
> "remove this package" and I don't think that the mechanism is to just
> move the package to "prev".  Maybe the mechanism is as simple as just
> having a setup.hint like:
>
>   setup.hint:
>   curr uninstall "This package is now obsolete"
>
> (wouldn't it be cool to have a "bubble" appear with the above words
when
> you moved the mouse cursor over the package name?)
>
> Actually, in this case, where the package maintainer means to
obviously
> uninstall something, I think it is acceptable for setup.exe to do so.

Versioned conflicts will do this, which is a wishlist feature. Someone
offered to do them, but I don't think a patch has arrived yet.

> I don't think that setup.exe should automatically switch to Uninstall
> in any circumstances unless the package maintainer has specifically
> indicated that is the correct behavior.  Somehow.

I agree. My point has been (from the beginning) about *where* that
intent gets indicated.

Rob

- Raw text -