RE: Comments on Robert's category feature

["Robert Collins" <robert dot collins at itdomain dot com dot au>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Keener [mailto:bkeener@thesoftwaresource.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 3:44 AM
> To: cygwin-developers@cygwin.com
> Subject: Re: Comments on Robert's category feature
> 
> 
> Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > >> I think that if we have a few categories:
> > >> 
> > >> Default (or Core?)
> > >> Standard
> > >> Development
> > >> Graphics
> > >> XFree86
> > >> 
> > >> It might help.
> 
> For some reason I had categories pictured in a whole 
> different light.  At some 
> time long ago categories were mentioned in terms of such 
> items as shell's, 
> emulators, editors....  And while this does not lend itself 
> well to all 
> packages that was the light that I was thinking of categories in. 

There are really three things here: 
1) preset templates for setting up a machine for development/xfree86
use/ and the like
2) marking each package as being of a particular type or category
3) ensuring that each package has what it needs to run.
 
> I also agree with the above but see the above as more of a 
> broader category 
> (let's call it installation method - ie are you installing 
> just the core, a 
> workstation, a server, development system) - this is 
> something I see as 
> selectable from a installation method dialog whereas 
> categories are let's go 
> select a shell, let's go select an editor and so on.

Sure. I agree with you. The point about "installation methods" is that
they _require_ dependencies to operate. They don't _require_ package
categorisation. The reason they require dependencies is that you are
specifying a list of packages that need to be installed. That can be
done in one of two ways: special code that turns on packages x, y, and
z, or generic dependencies, and then have a meta-package that depends on
the packages needed for the core/ a workstation/ a server/ a development
system.
 
> Then later on as we implement dependencies then you have - 
> sorry you cannot 
> install that emulator without this shell or whatever.

<see above>

> Just my $.02 cents worth.  
> 
> On a side note as well I tried to try the dependecies logic 
> using an update 
> from cvs and Roberts sample setup.ini - I don't see anything 
> different - where 
> is the categories.

You will need chris's updated copy of my patch before anything happens
to the setup.exe interface. The code in CVS is just the parser, not the
operational logic. 

BTW: I'm about 50% through to doing the updated screen Chris suggested.
I think that a third view, that selects the metapackages only will be
quite useful (ie show 
Development
Workstation
Server
and just let the user choose one of those) but one thing at a time.

Rob
 
> bk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>