Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Message-Id: <4.3.2.20000229173652.00d67320@pop.ma.ultranet.com> X-Sender: lhall AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3 Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 17:43:36 -0500 To: "cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com" From: "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" Subject: Re: setup.exe questions In-Reply-To: <20000229173209.B13846@shell4.ba.best.com> References: <4 DOT 3 DOT 2 DOT 20000229164633 DOT 00d6b250 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com> <20000229204605 DOT 27450 DOT qmail AT web110 DOT yahoomail DOT com> <20000229204605 DOT 27450 DOT qmail AT web110 DOT yahoomail DOT com> <20000229162702 DOT B24660 AT shell4 DOT ba DOT best DOT com> <4 DOT 3 DOT 2 DOT 20000229164633 DOT 00d6b250 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 05:32 PM 2/29/00, Glenn Spell wrote: >On 29 Feb 2000 around 4:49PM (-0500) Larry Hall (RFK Partners, >Inc) wrote: > > > At 04:27 PM 2/29/00, Glenn Spell wrote: > > > > >I suggest calling them .profile, .cshrc, etc... and that they be > > >expected to work as installed. > > > > If we're going to do this, then putting these files in better be > > an option (and probably better to default to off!) I certainly > > wouldn't be happy if my .profile, .cshrc, .vimrc, etc. got > > overwritten just because I decided to do an install. Neither will > > other than first time users... > >I didn't realize the install routine would be or do an >upgrade... that's different. I wouldn't expect the install routine to >consider the quirks of my previous install and my deviations from any >standards. In fact, I wouldn't want the install to touch my previous >install. I'd make a totally new install and then change that to my >personal preferences. > >If the installer does upgrades, different options should be used. > >-glenn If you're going to toss out the option of being able to use the install procedure to update an existing installation, then your suggestion has more merit. However, I think it will be counter-intuitive to most that the install cannot be used to "upgrade" and prohibiting this option makes the installer much less useful. If the installer is only good for first time installers (unless you're careful), we're going to see more mail on this list about problems with the installer. I'm not sure what the general intent of the installer is but if this is it, I'd rather not see one... Larry