Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: RE: setup.exe (cinstall) bugfixes + minor new feature MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 00:29:25 +1100 Message-ID: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: setup.exe (cinstall) bugfixes + minor new feature Thread-Index: AcHDfWfSRiH4BRdGQT2sEl3h4Riw9gAApl3w From: "Robert Collins" To: "Max Bowsher" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id g24DaEf07963 > -----Original Message----- > From: Max Bowsher [mailto:maxb AT ukf DOT net] > > > > I was thinking that > > If the setting is absent it prompts, > > if the setting is on it always creates, overwriting the > current one if > > the setting is off it never creates. > > > Rob > > Hmm - I'm not sure I understand this. > > Current behaviour is that setup checks the boxes by default, > if it does not find the shortcuts. The user can manually > check the boxes to run the creation code even if they already > exist. I find it mildly annoying to have to uncheck both > boxes each time I run setup. (My desktop shortcut is called > something different, and I don't want a start menu one) > Therefore, I would like setup to remember the fact that the > user has deliberately unchecked the boxes. I don't understand > why anyone would want the shortcuts deleted and recreated > every time the run setup? I can think of reasons :}. The first one being that as a sysadmin I might want to force every user to get shortcuts - without being prompted. Now a shared cygwin install does not imply shared profiles - desktop and start menu locations - so the ability to turn off the prompt and always create is thus useful. > I will proceed with fixing that bug, and investigate the use > of a setup.conf file. Are there any objections to using > windows {Get,Set}PrivateProfileInt API calls? Or should I > investigate the setup.ini parsing code, and try to use that? Neither :}. I've a model in mind for persistence for all the currently diverse setup options. Seriously though, for now, code it with Get|Set... And I'll get my model documented and into code at some point. Rob -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/