| www.delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
Brian Keener wrote: > > Charles S. Wilson wrote: > > That's not what setup is for, altough you're welcome to use it that > > way. > > I disagree. > Me too! > > The point: your use of setup is a 'neat thing' but is not the primary > > purpose of the tool. However, none of the changes folks have been > > discussing will prevent your use of the tool in that way. > > I don't know why - I can't put my finger on it but that statement really > hurts and touched a nerve - my apologies up front > > <Getting on soapbox> > Scoot over. > Obviously, I missed the boat somewhere - I thought my use of setup was > exactly the use of setup: > > To allow someone the ability to see what packages are available, to > download them and/or install them right then or later and not have to be > concerned with all the knowledge and commands required to do the ftp, the > tars and so on that would be required without setup. Then also to > provide a tool for keeping these packages updated as they should be. As > volunteer software it does exactly what it should do and I think what it > was designed to do. > I agree with this. > That said do we now want to add the additional information required to > give the inexperienced like myself the ability to know what they must > have for the base system and then what they need if they want to use > OpenSSH - absolutely - but you can (and I am not saying you want to) > accomplish the same thing with an FAQ. In many cases simply displaying > the Categories and dependencies where people could read them and select > their packages based on them from within Setup might be enough although > definitely not the way you would want to do it if you are trying to write > a 'true package management tool.'. > I disagree with this. At the time a newbie uses setup s/he will most likely not have read the FAQ. The original idea was to use the setup.hint file so that setup could determine what else should be downloaded for a given package. That could be accomplished either automagically or with a hint on the setup window. I prefer automagically. > I was only attempting to understand how either rpm or dpkg fit into the > install or download operations in conjunction with setup. I was only > attempting to understand how setup essentially communicates with dpkg or > rpm to accomplish the given task. From what little I remember of rpm - > it essentially accomplishes the task of a true package management tool > without the use off setup. > Right on. At least a third or more of the people using Cygwin have no idea what RPM and dpkg are. I barely know myself and to use them would require education that I don't have time for. I would really hate for the gzipped tarball to be replaced by .rpm :Q > <Getting off soapbox> > > Thanks all for the additional information. Earnie. _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
| webmaster | delorie software privacy |
| Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |