Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2002/02/18/23:19:51
===
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: Setup
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 12:27:26PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> If the question is "Should 'upset' add a dummy Test entry for every
case
> where there is no such thing?" then the answer, IMO, is no. I think
the
> same applies for the case where an initial release of a product is
> marked test. Setting up a dummy "Current" which is the same as "Test"
> would defeat the purpose of "Test".
For the first case, I think the answer is yes, for the second, it
*should* be no (because, as you say, it would defeat the purpose of
test).
Otherwise we need a *new* mechanism to tell setup.exe when a package is
replaced from current to test - that is that no test version exists, and
that when moving to test, the current version should be removed.
> I think that the bottom line is that setup.exe should NEVER default to
> Uninstall. Uninstall should only be on when the user specifically
selects
> it. Anything else is, IMO, surprising and dangerous.
I agree that the user should be warned before automated uninstalls
happen. Thats not ever been the case though in the gui.
Setup doesn't *default* to uninstall. Two things have to happen:
The user has to select Test (which means 'give me a testing
distribution').
Their has to be no valid testing version for that package.
Rob
- Raw text -