Re: Bug in startxwin.bat after installing with setup.exe in win98SE

[Jehan <nahor at bravobrava dot com>]

Nicholas Wourms wrote:
> --- Robert Collins <robert.collins@syncretize.net> wrote:
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: cygwin-xfree-owner@cygwin.com 
> > > [mailto:cygwin-xfree-owner@cygwin.com] On Behalf Of Nicholas Wourms
> > > Sent: Sunday, 14 July 2002 11:09 AM
> > > Robert,
> > >
> > > I'll have none of this debian talk.  You know full well that 
> > > I am working
> > > very hard to get rpm-4.1 ready for inclusion into the 
> > > distribution.  At
> > > that point, Chuck and I will start figuring out ways to 
> > > interface it with
> > > setup.  Also, we will be figuring out how to best transition 
> > > setup to use
> > > rpms.  The point of this is that all this talk is a long way 
> > > off.  I'm not
> > > going to invent a new interface when others already exist.  
> > > The fact of
> > > the matter is, that for right now, setup is well suited to perform the
> > > task at hand, which is to support all of the future X users.  
> > > Like it or
> > > not, there is enough of them to warrant a separate mailing list.  Lets
> > > temporarily let setup do this now and then we'll replace it 
> > > when something
> > > better comes along.
> > Nicholas, no consensus has been reached for using the rpm database as
> > the backend. If rpm has a similar system to the one I referenced,
> > substitute rpm for dpkg in my previous comments. I *did not* suggest
> > that we use dpkg as a backend for this particular thing either - I
> > pointed out the best practice pattern to address the issue we are
> > facing. Lets stick to that topic, shall we?
>
> Hey, you were the one who brought up debian...
>
>
> > For now, try listening, not taking the conversation off on tangents. I
> > happen to have put quite a bit of effort into the Cygwin Xfree86 project
> > in the past, and continue to make various contributions as and when it's
> > appropriate. I strongly resent your implying that I might dislike the
> > presence of the cygwin-xfree86 community - which I am a member of!
>
> I am listening...  I don't know where you got this one from, but I respect
> your membership in the Cygwin/XFree86 community.
>
>
> > The simple fact is, I disagree with your proposal, and you have made no
> > convincing arguments to change my mind. What you are suggesting is not
> > what 'most' windows installers do, it is not flexible, it is a step
> > backwards in approach, and a proper solution is not that hard to do!
> What you are suggesting is akin to Windows installers run batch files in
> the background?  I don't think so, so why should we run shell scripts?  
Several points here:
1- You have one setup.exe per application in the Windows world. Cygwin 
is actually several applications, all using the same setup.exe.
2- A couple years ago, I used Installshield. For what I remember, *there 
is* a script. For standard stuff (like destination directory and the 
like), this is just field to enter. For more complicated stuff (adding 
key to the registry for instance), you can write a script. With 
setup.exe, we have a same thing. The standard stuff are descriptions, 
dependencies, version,... and non standard are through scripts. 
Shortcuts isn't used enough to add a field in setup.ini but could be 
used to often enough to just hardcode it in the binary.


> Fine, how's this, I'll rip out
> the specific references to cygwin.bat and instead have setup parse the ini
> for what it should display in that last window and how many it should
> display.  
That's a better solution that I could settle for even if I think that 
too few application would use it to be worthwhile.

	jehan