Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>, <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-developers-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Message-Id:	<4.3.2.20000229173652.00d67320@pop.ma.ultranet.com>
X-Sender:	lhall AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com
X-Mailer:	QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3
Date:	Tue, 29 Feb 2000 17:43:36 -0500
To:	"cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com" <cygwin-developers AT hotpop DOT com>
From:	"Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" <lhall AT rfk DOT com>
Subject:	Re: setup.exe questions
In-Reply-To:	<20000229173209.B13846@shell4.ba.best.com>
References:	<4 DOT 3 DOT 2 DOT 20000229164633 DOT 00d6b250 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com>
	<20000229204605 DOT 27450 DOT qmail AT web110 DOT yahoomail DOT com>
	<20000229204605 DOT 27450 DOT qmail AT web110 DOT yahoomail DOT com>
	<20000229162702 DOT B24660 AT shell4 DOT ba DOT best DOT com>
	<4 DOT 3 DOT 2 DOT 20000229164633 DOT 00d6b250 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com>
Mime-Version:	1.0

At 05:32 PM 2/29/00, Glenn Spell wrote:
>On 29 Feb 2000 around 4:49PM (-0500) Larry Hall (RFK Partners,
>Inc) wrote:
>
> > At 04:27 PM 2/29/00, Glenn Spell wrote:
> >
> > >I suggest calling them .profile, .cshrc, etc... and that they be
> > >expected to work as installed.
> >
> > If we're going to do this, then putting these files in better be
> > an option (and probably better to default to off!)  I certainly
> > wouldn't be happy if my .profile, .cshrc, .vimrc, etc. got
> > overwritten just because I decided to do an install.  Neither will
> > other than first time users...
>
>I didn't realize the install routine would be or do an
>upgrade... that's different. I wouldn't expect the install routine to
>consider the quirks of my previous install and my deviations from any
>standards.  In fact, I wouldn't want the install to touch my previous
>install.  I'd make a totally new install and then change that to my
>personal preferences.
>
>If the installer does upgrades, different options should be used.
>
>-glenn



If you're going to toss out the option of being able to use the install
procedure to update an existing installation, then your suggestion has 
more merit.  However, I think it will be counter-intuitive to most that 
the install cannot be used to "upgrade" and prohibiting this option makes 
the installer much less useful.  If the installer is only good 
for first time installers (unless you're careful), we're going to see
more mail on this list about problems with the installer.  I'm not sure 
what the general intent of the installer is but if this is it, I'd rather
not see one...



Larry

- Raw text -