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: <415F84D9.71F7A078@dessent.net> Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 21:49:29 -0700 From: Brian Dessent Organization: My own little world... MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Request for a version/ revision/ release number for the whole Cygwin release/ distribution References: <200410030214 DOT i932ESVF003419 AT a DOT mail DOT sonic DOT net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com David Christensen wrote: > If we can build a fully automated Cygwin "stable" test suite and > parallelize it across many computers (wishful thinking: SETI screen > saver), it may be possible to do 100% testing of all changes prior to > release -- major, minor, and updates. Fortunately for all the other major software projects like Redhat/Debian, their installer tools can be automated. The cygwin setup.exe is the sole supported means for installing and removing packages, and it requires user intervention. Yes, I know there are some command line parameters that are undocumented that you can kludge up an automated solution with, but I've never really seen anyone step up and say that they are working or even supported. From reading bug reports on the list, one of the major areas that Cygwin could be improved is just minor little issues that occur during setup. "Oops, package wasn't installed but is required." "Oh, looks like that postinstall script has a minor bug that causes it to hang." And so on... Those are the kind of things that I think it would be great to solve (e.g. a nightly automated stock base install, with a test harness that ensures that stuff that should work on a base install does work) but at this point the whole setup infrastructure just isn't there. Perhaps that would be a managable sub-goal to focus on first -- separating setup into a scriptable backend and GUI frontend. I know it has been discussed before but it's no trivial undertaking. Really, I think everyone agrees that it would be great to have what you're describing... But the problem is that it requires a lot of initiative on somebody's part, and currently the people that would be most qualified to steer that initiative are too busy to do so. Brian -- 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/