Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 11:51:03 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Restructuring gettext
Message-ID: <20020104165103.GA30512@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
References: <3C18EBA9 DOT 9030102 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <0b5501c184be$8639eb80$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <3C1A35F6 DOT 8050909 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <0f8901c185fc$a108b600$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <3C1D5F00 DOT 3010506 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <3C3384B2 DOT 8070305 AT home DOT com> <20020103002446 DOT GA8508 AT redhat DOT com> <3C35CD04 DOT 8070902 AT home DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3C35CD04.8070902@home.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 10:40:52AM -0500, David A. Cobb wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>>On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 05:07:46PM -0500, David A. Cobb wrote:
>>
>>>Charles Wilson wrote:
>>>>it occurs.  (Perhaps upgrades of currently installed packages should 
>>>>ALWAYS precede installation of new packages?)
>>>>
>>>
>>>I've had cases like this in another context and found the most 
>>>straightforward solution is for (setup.exe) to do any uninstalls first, 
>>>then any reinstalls, then everything else.  This would also have saved a 
>>>few shot toes when libncurses#n came out (I thin`).
>>>
>>
>>I've thought about suggesting the same thing but the problem with that
>>scenario is that if you cancel an installation, then all sorts of stuff
>>is uninstalled -- which probably isn't what you expected.
>
>Probably not.  But "cancel" at what point in the process?  It's *real* 
>hard to program an installation procedure that's robust in the face of a 
>user clicking the "cancel" button in the middle.  Even the 
>"professional" packages are likely to barf.

The "professional" installers aren't installing a number of disparate packages.

I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that if I cancel a gcc installation
my current binutils setup will still be intact.

cgf