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: <009d01c1bce7$18553870$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
From: "Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To: <bkeener AT thesoftwaresource DOT com>, <cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
References: <015a01c1b886$622561b0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <VA DOT 00000a82 DOT 00e1d48b AT thesoftwaresource DOT com> <005701c1b8f0$0e3794f0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <008901c1b8f8$b8d2afa0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <VA DOT 00000a93 DOT 01cf402a AT thesoftwaresource DOT com> <030301c1bbf1$f66967e0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <VA DOT 00000a96 DOT 01b41c49 AT thesoftwaresource DOT com>
Subject: Re: Setup
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 14:55:26 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
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: 24 Feb 2002 03:54:30.0977 (UTC) FILETIME=[F6A7B310:01C1BCE6]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Keener" <bkeener AT thesoftwaresource DOT com>

> > he solution is wrong, but I can't articulate (yet) how the model is
> > wrong, and so I've followed the (apparent) consensus.
>
> I don't know why that doesn't seem right to you.  It appears to me
that I will
> never have an installation that is comprised solely of all Test
packages.

[Devil's advocate mode on] Why not? Debian has one, and it works great.

> I
> will always be testing a few packages but the bulk of the system will
be the
> current Stable versions.  That would naturally be the nature of the
beast as
> working with all test versions would be to cumbersome to find where
something
> was failing.  That said if I have to work with Current Stable versions
while I
> am testing experimental packages why would I want the default on the
installed
> packages to be Uninstall - I would want to keep those packages so I
would still > have a working system. I also do not particularly want to
click on 20 packages
> to say keep these instead of uninstalling.  Makes perfect sense to me.

I have never said that I want every package to uninstall. I have
explained that that behaviour is a SIDE EFFECT of the behaviour I want,
which is for system smarts about the intention of maintainers to be
removed from setup, and made explicit. This gives greater flexability,
and the potential for quicker changes - because setup.exe won't be part
of the change process.

However, that was not what I was referring to in saying that the
solution is wrong. I mean that the whole x= prev/curr/test y=version
model is wrong, and because THAT is wrong, the GUI and engine behaviour
is confusing (because it has multiple, reasonable interpretations).

> As to the NULL file when reinstalling - that patch was applied to HEAD
and not
...
> tried to just install zlib it still failed and would not install zlib.
It just > doesn't seem to like the last file.

I'll have a look-see.

Rob