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
Message-ID: <009701c1b8fc$a8eedba0$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
From: "Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To: <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
References: <015a01c1b886$622561b0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <VA DOT 00000a82 DOT 00e1d48b AT thesoftwaresource DOT com> <002501c1b8e4$9754b5d0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <20020219040513 DOT GA372 AT redhat DOT com>
Subject: Re: Setup
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 15:19:43 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Feb 2002 04:18:57.0158 (UTC) FILETIME=[8C806A60:01C1B8FC]


===
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: Setup


> On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 12:27:26PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:

> If the question is "Should 'upset' add a dummy Test entry for every
case
> where there is no such thing?" then the answer, IMO, is no.  I think
the
> same applies for the case where an initial release of a product is
> marked test.  Setting up a dummy "Current" which is the same as "Test"
> would defeat the purpose of "Test".

For the first case, I think the answer is yes, for the second, it
*should* be no (because, as you say, it would defeat the purpose of
test).

Otherwise we need a *new* mechanism to tell setup.exe when a package is
replaced from current to test - that is that no test version exists, and
that when moving to test, the current version should be removed.

> I think that the bottom line is that setup.exe should NEVER default to
> Uninstall.  Uninstall should only be on when the user specifically
selects
> it.  Anything else is, IMO, surprising and dangerous.

I agree that the user should be warned before automated uninstalls
happen. Thats not ever been the case though in the gui.

Setup doesn't *default* to uninstall. Two things have to happen:
The user has to select Test (which means 'give me a testing
distribution').
Their has to be no valid testing version for that package.

Rob