X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-Original-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 70DC53858D37 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=yandex.ru Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=yandex.ru DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yandex.ru; s=mail; t=1643878201; bh=k5Oi4cEB+WRU+eSI1Nsq2Pq0J1bRSUnFvffjLHQhpLs=; h=In-Reply-To:Subject:From:Message-ID:References:Date:Reply-To:To; b=jqTL8XQEm0/XdRpN+u1khaqSRq2k4/haNUpVU77slxGMqCpyKEamtwMJE5mqtr042 RQQqBti/0FUuRroO3Z9ZjmkZzcuIjy9mS4eRk6hDb0Q5HPeyvvcqqNHGdOFslk97sw BbVuuA0GamG7PMZsYrP3YSlmaRQLLyRmRLa462Oo= Authentication-Results: myt6-2cec5828668a.qloud-c.yandex.net; dkim=pass header.i=@yandex.ru X-Yandex-Fwd: 2 Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2022 11:38:57 +0300 From: Andrey Repin X-Mailer: The Bat! (v6.8.8) Home X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <18510627601.20220203113857@yandex.ru> To: Jon Turney , cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: setup-*.exe --help default explanation re -D/-L options [Was: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: setup (2.917)] In-Reply-To: References: <20220131221159 DOT 3hcw3xxcwje6sahf AT lucy DOT dinwoodie DOT org> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, KAM_THEBAT, NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: General Cygwin discussions and problem reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: cygwin-bounces+archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com Sender: "Cygwin" Greetings, Jon Turney! >> If neither --download nor --local-install is specified, the default >> is to repeat the same action as from the previous run. If no >> previous run can be found, the default is to perform both actions, >> and both actions can be explicitly requested by specifying both >> --download and --local-install. > Note that I tweaked the behaviour of this a bit in [1] > [1] > https://cygwin.com/git/?p=cygwin-apps/setup.git;a=commit;h=147fc15d0222e050779b18a209991c258d85944f > I think that makes the current help text accurately describe > non-interactive mode. > There are some cases in interactive mode which are obscure (e.g. '-M' > without '-D' or '-L' gets you whatever mode you used last time without > showing you what it was, but I'm not sure if that needs to be here. >> In particular, the fact that the two options currently say they will >> "only" do their action, and that the default is to perform both, lead me >> to believe (a) the options were mutually exclusive and one would >> presumably override the other, (b) this was probably a legacy from >> before setup.rc stored the previous action, and therefore (c) if I was >> running setup with `-q` or `-M`, there was no way to get the supposedly >> default "do both" behaviour; I'd instead need to go through the full >> GUI. >> >> Having now seen how this setting is stored, I've realised I can just >> call setup with `-DL` and it'll perform both actions again. But I think >> my assumption that "default" was supposed to mean "default always" not >> "default only on first run" wasn't *entirely* PEBCAK (even if it mostly >> was), so that help text would definitely benefit from being made a bit >> more explicit. >> >> (I'm aware my suggestion above is decidedly wordy; it's not intended to >> be exactly what I think is required, only a first pass at clarifying the >> key details I think are missing.) > Perhaps the best thing would be to have something like > '--mode={download, install, somebetterwordforboth}' and document '-D' > and '-L' as short aliases for forms of that (which makes the modality > clear). Definitely no. You'd have to invent a "better word" first and that would be a whole new layer of explanation. I'd vote for removal of -M for unattended operations instead. (I.e. make -q and -M mutually exclusive.) I mean, this is an unattended operation, right? You HAVE TO be explicit in what results are expected from it. -- With best regards, Andrey Repin Thursday, February 3, 2022 11:35:30 Sorry for my terrible english... -- Problem reports: https://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: https://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: https://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple