Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2002/01/04/11:51:08
On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 10:40:52AM -0500, David A. Cobb wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>>On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 05:07:46PM -0500, David A. Cobb wrote:
>>
>>>Charles Wilson wrote:
>>>>it occurs. (Perhaps upgrades of currently installed packages should
>>>>ALWAYS precede installation of new packages?)
>>>>
>>>
>>>I've had cases like this in another context and found the most
>>>straightforward solution is for (setup.exe) to do any uninstalls first,
>>>then any reinstalls, then everything else. This would also have saved a
>>>few shot toes when libncurses#n came out (I thin`).
>>>
>>
>>I've thought about suggesting the same thing but the problem with that
>>scenario is that if you cancel an installation, then all sorts of stuff
>>is uninstalled -- which probably isn't what you expected.
>
>Probably not. But "cancel" at what point in the process? It's *real*
>hard to program an installation procedure that's robust in the face of a
>user clicking the "cancel" button in the middle. Even the
>"professional" packages are likely to barf.
The "professional" installers aren't installing a number of disparate packages.
I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that if I cancel a gcc installation
my current binutils setup will still be intact.
cgf
- Raw text -