To: cygwin@cygwin.com
From: Matthew Woehlke <mw_triad@users.sourceforge.net>
Subject:  Re: Eliminating -mno-cygwin from gcc.
Date:  Mon, 05 Feb 2007 10:36:34 -0600
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <eq7mei$nf6$1@sea.gmane.org>
References:  <020d01c748b4$62d8b170$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> <20070205030939.GB24653@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <45C6A0DC.3010104@users.sourceforge.net> <20070205033101.GE24653@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <45C6A793.8020008@users.sourceforge.net> <45C6ABAB.8030500@cygwin.com> <eq7kmh$f85$2@sea.gmane.org> <20070205162433.GA9486@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
Mime-Version:  1.0
Content-Type:  text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding:  7bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.9) Gecko/20061206 Thunderbird/1.5.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.4.0
In-Reply-To: <20070205162433.GA9486@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 10:06:41AM -0600, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>> Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
>>> The discussion has been to augment 'setup.exe' in a way as to provide users
>>> with feedback about "important" package changes in general.  It has come up
>>> in the context of the gcc change but would have to apply generally.
>>> "Important" would be defined by the maintainer by some mechanism.
>>> Presumably, every release of package 'foo' does not trigger the "important"
>>> flag. ;-)
>> Hmm, there might be a catch-22 here. How do we force people to update 
>> their setup.exe?
> 
> Doesn't setup.exe warns if the setup.ini being used has a different
> version number?

Oh, ok, I was thinking that dealt with the package list, not the version 
of setup.exe. (Actually IIRC there are both, so I wasn't remembering the 
setup.exe version warning. Maybe because I've been using the 
still-not-official 2.551 for so long :-).)

> In any event, we are, of course, going to send out details in
> cygwin-announce.

...and we all know how effective that is? :-)

>> (What about a change that does not affect setup.exe itself? Maybe a 
>> package that most things depend on that allows a post-install script to 
>> display a dialog? Or was that the plan already?)
> 
> I suppose that you could add a post-install script but it is too late at
> that point.  This would force a normal cygwin user into a reinstall frenzy
> from which they might not ever recover.  It might be better than nothing,
> though.

Hmm... a pre-remove wouldn't work, right? (Those come from the old package?)

I agree it wouldn't help with 'oops, I didn't *really* want to install 
that', but at least it ensures that the messages get read. Maybe add a 
file to the package along-side the post-installer; the post-installer 
could display it if present, and setup.exe could also display (and then 
remove) it, so the post-installer trick is only used when/if people 
don't upgrade setup.exe.

-- 
Matthew
This message is non-smoking


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/