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 Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 20:12:14 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: New setup uploaded - 2.218.2.8 Message-ID: <20020517001214.GA29459@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 08:04:42AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote: >>On the other hand, would it be a good idea for setup.exe to tag its >>directories in some way, like with a zero-byte file, so that it doesn't >>take just any old setup.ini file it finds? > >Mmmm. I'll think about this. I don't want to interfere with users >using mirroring tools. I think this is really not a great idea. The "local directory" that setup.exe uses is supposed to be only for that purpose. Adding zero length files for people who don't get the concept seems like the wrong way to go. Especially since I can easily see the "setup.exe is creating zero length files!!! How I stop this????" comments here. There really has to be a limit on how much we coddle people who make bad decisions, IMO. On the other hand, having setup.exe complain when someone specifies an existing populated directory that has no setup.ini files in it, might not be a bad idea. I think that something like this would be a great idea for some intrepid setup.exe patcher. Another plan would be not to parse any setup.ini file that was missing both of the setup-*: options. cgf -- 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/