This is the mail archive of the
cygwin@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: setup 2.194.2.24: Bug (?) in downloading from internet
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Edge" <sam_edgeZZZ@hotmail.com>
To: <cygwin@cygwin.com>
> > A 'normal' install - download and install - works fine, no problems.
>
> Read my and Christopher Faylor's posts especially
> <20020429050712.GC27298@redhat.com> where we explain where for some
> people download and install with the current version of setup.exe does
> not work fine.
Actually, the current functionality wil do the trick, as long as you
install what you have downloaded. Combined with multi-mirror failure,
unless you have a *really* bad phone line connection, you should be able
to successfully install bit by bit. Notwithstanding that I do understand
and (mostly) agree with whats been said though.
> > A reference for this is
> > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2001-11/msg00271.html.
>
> Ah. Exactly. :-)
>
> So is it worth my while looking at the code with an eye to providing a
> patch for this (specifically the checkbox option) or is it work in
> progress elsewhere?
Work is in progress. You (and everyone who's jumped in on this) might
like to read Havoc Penningtons recent paper
http://www106.pair.com/rhp/free-software-ui.html.
What follows is not a critique of your suggestion, just an explanation
as to why the checkbox is not appropriate IMO. Before reading the
following, be sure to have read Havoc's paper above.
We have a problem with setup.exe.
* Corrupt package files are not always detected and automatically
removed. *
That's it. "Redownloading" is a workaround for that. (If in fact there
are -other- reasons for "redownloading" then I will revise that
statement.)
Checkbox's, command line options, and 'special case code' and the
redownload itself are all kludges around fixing the key problem.
And thats why this has become a sudden issue. I *unknowningly* removed a
bit of special case code that interfaced between good logic and the
redownload capability to make it seem 'correct' to the user. (BTW:
Chris, it was NOT your fault. Really.)
The real solution is to positively identify corrupt archives and
transparently remove them (perhaps asking the user whether we should
delete, backup, or skip over the package).
Rob
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/