X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.9 required=5.0 	tests=BAYES_20,DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,FREEMAIL_FROM,NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From: Paul Bibbings <paul DOT bibbings AT gmail DOT com>
Subject: Re: How to uninstall Cygwin/X (only)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 11:41:57 +0100
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <87tyri6zka.fsf@gmail.com>
References: <r2keb3a2d501004081157x916548ebu8e4c17c46953e322 AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> 	<4BBE2F37 DOT 1060303 AT cygwin DOT com> <83y6gx330e DOT fsf AT torus DOT sehlabs DOT com> 	<83tyrl32lq DOT fsf AT torus DOT sehlabs DOT com> <4BBE886F DOT 409 AT cwilson DOT fastmail DOT fm> 	<4BBE99F4 DOT 2080405 AT gmail DOT com> <877hoheypo DOT fsf AT gmail DOT com> 	<4BC12044 DOT 6050806 AT huarp DOT harvard DOT edu> <87r5mmad2y DOT fsf AT gmail DOT com> 	<4BC14B93 DOT 2050703 AT gmail DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.1 (windows-nt)
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

Dave Korn <dave DOT  DOT  DOT win AT googlemail DOT com> writes:

> On 11/04/2010 04:21, Paul Bibbings wrote:
>
>>   For
>> instance, if I click on the view button and select `Not installed',
>> suppose I select a package that I don't have - for example (I'm trying
>> this now), aspell-dev 0.60.5-1.  Then, suppose I merely cycle through
>> the Views and come back to `Not installed'. aspell-dev is no longer in
>> the list, despite the fact that I have not done anything other than
>> change the view.  It is no more installed now than it was before. 
>
>   Well, the way I think of it is that when setup starts up, those displays
> show you the current state of your installation; and what you do is change
> things until they show you how you want it to be after setup completes, and
> then when you've got everything how you want it to be, you hit "Next" to apply
> your changes.

This is, of course, a valid UI motif, and one that users can attach some
familiarity to, which always helps.  However, as I see it, in this  
instance, taking this to be the motif creates inconsistencies 
elsewhere.  Following the idea that that setup shows, after selection,
"how you want it to be after setup completes," I would then expect to
see my newly selected package to show up in `Up to date', and it isn't
there either. Certainly it shows in `Partial', and maybe this is enough,
but this of itself is not consistent with the idea that setup is
reflecting the state of the system *after* completion of setup; I
certainly don't expect to find it "partially" installed.

I am still thinking this through, but at present am still leaning
towards the idea that *where* a package appears - in which view(s) -
should better reflect the state of the system as-is.  The state of the
`Bin?'/`Src?' checks are better suited to handle alone the motif of
"this is how your system will be after setup finishes."  The main
reasons for leaning this way are that, as is, setup sits half way between
showing `as-is' and `will-be' - a selected package appears neither in
`Up to date' nor `Not installed; that if the view that a package appears
in (of these two) reflects the `will-be' state, then the user loses
information (Is this package /actually/ installed, or is it just that it
will be.  The distinction is gone); and that, retaining a selected
package in the `Not installed' list whilst taking the state of the
checks alone to reflect the `will be' state appears to remove all of
these issues.  In this way the user retains information about what is
actually installed, whilst having also a view of how the system will be
after completion of setup, and this without any evident inconsistency
that I can see.

Regards

Paul Bibbings


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple