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 Message-ID: <026a01c20e37$25a362d0$42a18c09@wdg.uk.ibm.com> From: "Max Bowsher" To: References: <009401c20e33$db5b4d30$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> Subject: Re: Crashing setup.exe Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 16:22:33 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 robertc wrote: > No. One SHOULD NOT TOUCH the cygwin packages directory. Setup reserves > the right to do -anything- it wants to that dir, including zapping the > content, moving files etc etc. Setup has the right to use its package cache as it sees fit, but users of setup have the right to manage setup's use of their hard disc. If everyone treated package directories opaquely, they would never purge old versions of packages, and sooner or later, we would all have 10GB package directories. The setup's handling of its cache should be like the rest of cygwin - if you don't like it, make a clean, debugged patch to change it, and provide a good argument to why it should be applied. I appreciate you are trying to prevent aimless discussion, but setup's cache _cannot_ be a black box. Max. -- 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/