Message-ID: <44DC9485.6050208@cygwin.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 10:30:29 -0400
From: "Larry Hall (Cygwin)" <reply-to-list-only-lh AT cygwin DOT com>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8) Gecko/20060112 Fedora/1.5-1.fc4.remi Thunderbird/1.5 Mnenhy/0.7.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Setup.exe requirements [was RE: Cygintl-3.dll was not found]
References: <009b01c6bd27$d0e96a10$a501a8c0 AT CAM DOT ARTIMI DOT COM>
In-Reply-To: <009b01c6bd27$d0e96a10$a501a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

Dave Korn wrote:
> On 11 August 2006 07:36, Reini Urban wrote:
> 
>> Tevfik Karagülle schrieb:
>>> After feedback from cgf, I have scanned setup.ini for packages and
>>> their dependencies. 54 of 797 packages are qualified for Base either
>>> directly or indirectly:
>> ...
>>> I will develop an NSIS package which creates registry
>>> Mount points, untar packages above and run the
>>> Postinstall script. Any suggestions including naming
>>> are welcome.
>> Already done for NSIS. See those three people at least:
>>
>> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cygwin&m=111351786214881&w=2
>> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cygwin&m=113525279200090&w=2
>> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cygwin&m=100075284818001&w=2
>>   => http://cygwin-lite.sourceforge.net/
> 
> 
>   That's a cunning and clever plan, but with just two slight problems:
> 
> 1) The website says: "  Update: As of version 1-3-3a, Cygwin-Lite is no longer
> being updated with newer versions of the Cygwin dll or GNU tools.   "
> 
> and
> 
> 2) The website says: "  Update: As of version 1-3-3a, Cygwin-Lite is no longer
> being updated with newer versions of the Cygwin dll or GNU tools.   "
> 
> 
>   Now, I know that technically, that's only one problem, but I thought it was
> such a big one it was worth mentioning twice!
> 


It's also worth noting that the goal here was a subset of Cygwin functionality
packaged as a monolithic (no matter how small) install.  While the former is a
potential supplement to "setup.exe", the latter is a step backward in terms of
installation flexibility.  It seems to me that any "setup.exe" replacement
cannot be monolithic installer or provide only a subset of the available
packages.

-- 
Larry Hall                              http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
216 Dalton Rd.                          (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746

--
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/