Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>, <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Message-ID: <00F8D6E8AB0DD3118F1A006008186C9605DD66@server1.axonet.com.au>
From: Andrew Dalgleish <andrewd AT axonet DOT com DOT au>
To: "'cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com'" <cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
Subject: RE: Future releases and packages
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 13:20:44 +1000
X-Priority: 3
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"



> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Chris Faylor [SMTP:cgf AT cygnus DOT com]
> Sent:	Thursday, October 14, 1999 12:56
> To:	Andrew Dalgleish
> Cc:	'cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com'
> Subject:	Re: Future releases and packages
> 
> On Thu, Oct 14, 1999 at 12:03:29PM +1000, Andrew Dalgleish wrote:
> >[Andrew Dalgleish]  
> >Finding volunteers is probably the least of your problems.
> 
> Well, I'm willing to be convinced, but I've mentioned this many times
> and only one person has ever stepped forth.
[Andrew Dalgleish]  
Count me in.

> >Will the packaging system have to support all possible installation
> >layouts?
> 
> Since RPM is ported now, I think it is probably a good alternative.
> I like dpkg, too.  That has been ported in the past.
> 
> >It is possible to install cygwin in so (too?) many ways.
> >I use a dedicated drive letter for my root mount and a full FHS-style
> >tree.
> >Other users may want to use a sub-dir for the root, or a simpler
> >directory layout.
> 
> It doesn't really matter.  You just specify where the root directory
> should
> be.  Then people can either say "c:\" or "i:\my\cygwin\stuff".
[Andrew Dalgleish]  
Yes, but do we have a full /usr/local/bin, /usr/local/sbin etc, or just
a single /bin?

I try to use FHS where possible, but even something like fileutils
doesn't put everything into the FHS locations.

Even under Linux this can be a problem.
I generally use Debian, but I often get annoyed by packages installed
into a location other than the one envisioned by the original software
author(s).
If you try to pick up a newer version direct from the author it won't
install into the default Debian location without modifications.

Should we support a sys-v style init?
(I know we don't actually have run-levels, but I like the scripts in one
dir, symlinks in another style approach.)

Some software packages will have support for this already.


> >Then there is the text vs binary issue for scripts, etc in each
> package.
> >I'm fairly sure no current Linux package manager has to handle that.
> :-)
> >(We have to support CR-NL in case the user edits a vital file using
> >notepad,
> >but we can't install text files if someone is using binary mounts.)
> 
> There is no issue to worry about when installing a package.  Every
> installed
> text file has to have \n endings.  There is no alternative to this.
[Andrew Dalgleish]  
If the package contains a list of which files are text, the package
manager can do a post-install conversion.
dpkg can do this, I guess rpm could too.

> After installation, if someone wants to merrily go around setting
> directories
> to text or binary mode, then they can do so.
> 
> >Should we say "We support X. If you want Y you are on your own."?
> >There will still be a lot of list traffic for the "Frank Sinatra"
> >installations.
> >"I did everything just like it said in the readme, except different
> >because..."
> 
> That's a good point.  However, since the support will primarily be
> done
> via the mailing list, we really don't have to worry about it, IMO.
> If someone uses a wacky installation layout they won't have as much
> of a chance of being answered but eventually Earnie will work up a
> series
> of questions and put it on his web page and then we'll only have to
> say
> "Go to Earnie's web page" repeatedly.
> 
> >Of course none of these are insurmountable problems, but they must be
> >addressed up front.
> 
> The one question that you didn't ask was "GUI or not".  I'd like to
> avoid
> a GUI installer but a lot of people seem to think that's a bad idea.
[Andrew Dalgleish]  
Personally, I'd opt for text-mode.

(At work, I'm converting our projects from InstallShield 5 to IS6.
They dropped several critical functions from their API.
I definitely recommend *against* using IS.)


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com