Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2002/03/25/19:31:37
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:cgf AT redhat DOT com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 11:21 AM
> >Hmm. I think that unclicking bin should uninstall - leaving it there
> >would be counter-intuititive.
>
> If you have the word install next to a box, I don't think it
> follows that it will be uninstalled.
Of course, my turn for stupidity :}
> >Tick Bin to install foo. Untick Bin to remove foo. Tick Source to
> >trigger a download of the source (download only mode) or extraction
> >(install from x mode).
>
> And when you just don't want a package? What do you click to
> get the equivalent of skip?
Don't click either? In this example perhaps the bin column should be
labelled "install".
> Given your above comments, I think we still need another
> clickable "thing" next to the Bin/Source, unless you have
> some way of getting the equivalent of a "skip/keep".
Ahh, so if you don't want to update you can stay put. Hmm. What about
[X] - install
[H] - hold
[ ] - uninstall
I know, it's heading back to the circular clicking thing :[.
> >However, I think some folk will want the current interface,
> so perhaps
> >we offer a 'basic' and 'advanced' download of setup, or a [Advanced]
> >button somewhere on the chooser. (To start with I'd suggest two
> >downloads because the chooser doesn't use a factory yet, so I can't
> >parameterize the display at runtime. That is a goal though.)
>
> I don't see any gain in keeping the old interface if we make
> the above changes. There is equivalent functionality and,
> imo, better clarity. You always get into trouble when you
> start trying to maintain disparate views.
Actually there is less functionality - no one-step reinstall, no
selection of arbitrary versions. Currently I can install any version
found on my hard disk, these proposed interfaces remove that ability.
> I haven't looked into the code recently, but I think this
> gets rid of some of that state machine stuff that (used to?)
> was never quite right. I think that nuking that logic would
> be a big enough goal for going to a plan like this.
It would remove the need for the state machine code, but that is very
stable now anyway (see package_meta if you are interested).
Rob
- Raw text -