X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <499473DA.6080704@bmts.com> Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:09:14 -0500 From: Ralph Hempel User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071022) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: CygWine 1.0 Beta -- an new cygwin package manager References: <4994679D.9070300@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4994679D.9070300@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-brucetelecom.com-MailScanner-Information: Please contact Bruce Telecom 519.368.2000 for more information X-brucetelecom.com-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-brucetelecom.com-MailScanner-From: rhempel@bmts.com X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Dave Korn wrote: > I'm taking a quick browse through the code. I see that you've based it on > chunks of the core setup.exe code, somewhat refactored and restructured. I > wonder if we couldn't merge the two codebases, in such a way that there's one > common 'setup engine' with a couple of alternative GUI front-ends; that might > be a neat way to fix up all the missing features and make sure there is > thoroughly consistent behaviour between the two different installers. You > know your own code better than I do - do you think that would be practical? As long as the command-line options don't go away you can do whatever you want with the front end :-) Ralph -- 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/