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:	<028501c1a462$63f25260$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
From:	"Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To:	<keith_starsmeare AT yahoo DOT co DOT uk>, <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
References:	<00b301c1a45e$82614b60$81293c3e AT Obsession> <20020123223901 DOT GA23219 AT redhat DOT com> <00de01c1a460$bc187660$81293c3e AT Obsession>
Subject:	Re: setup.exe command line options
Date:	Thu, 24 Jan 2002 10:05:02 +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:	23 Jan 2002 23:05:02.0532 (UTC) FILETIME=[63731040:01C1A462]

===
----- Original Message -----
From: "keith_starsmeare AT yahoo DOT co DOT uk" <kxs AT breathemail DOT net>
To: <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: setup.exe command line options


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
> To: <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 10:39 PM
> Subject: Re: setup.exe command line options
>
>
> > >I'm wondering if I could submit what I have so far, and either
leave some
> > >bits #ifdef'd out (how does the undefined macro
> > >COMMAND_LINE_OPTIONS_FULLY_IMPLEMENTED sound!?) or just miss those
bits
> out
> > >completely from my diff.
>
> > Does it even need to be commented out?  It seems like, if it works
> partially,
> > we just have a partial implementation.  No need to suffer the bit
rot
> assocated
> > with ifdefs.
>
> For the options that don't work, should I leave in the working getopt
code
> and take out the broken implementation?
>
> Also, incorrect usage, or --help pops up a window. Should I take that
out
> completely, ammend it to only include working options, or show all the
> options that I wanted to work?

At this point, if it builds and runs, send it in. Few patches that
change architecture (as this does)  get in on the first submission, so
minimise your effort.

Rob

- Raw text -