Re: setup revisit

[Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>]

On Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 01:02:05PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>> I know that you are just giving an example but porting to use bz2
>would
>> be pretty trivial these days.
>
>Uhmm, trivial without cygwin1.dll ? I presume thanks to the work at the
>mingw project.. Next example: rpm (depends on sleepycat db (raw win32
>only builds in MSVC at the moment) and possibly perl.

You'd just use libbz2 as we use libz in setup.exe.

>> You still have cygwin conflict issues.  We used to have to say "Stop
>all
>> Cygwin programs" but, surprise, people didn't do this and were
>confused
>> on the mailing list.
>
>Actually you *still* have to say that. I get caught by cygipc.exe on a
>routine basis - and I hope I'm not your average newbie. You will
>*always* have to say that until whatever is trying to replace
>cygwin1.dll / bash to name the most probable culprits is able to do
>"behind the scenes" work. See my comments re replaceing files on reboot
>for a long term solution.

You do have to say this when you are installing the cygwin package.
Other packages are unaffected.  With the old installer any installation
(gcc, bash, ncurses, etc.) was affected by the cygwin conflict.

>>At any rate, this sounds like a long-term goal for setup.exe not a
>>short term one.  I was hoping that someone could add some simple
>>dependency analysis to setup.exe and come up with some way of grouping
>>things by category.  That should be relatively simple compared to
>>redoing the entire installation to use apt or rpm.
>
>True.  I was hoping to put my nose down and hack all weekend, but it
>looks like rpm is *not* going to play nice so I'll give it a slightly
>lower priority for now.

Don't let me discourage you though, Robert.  If you can get this done,
it will be pretty cool.  Doesn't RPM have a library like interface, too?

cgf