Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2001/09/20/14:08:37
David Starks-Browning wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 Sep 01, Charles Wilson writes:
> > Does anyone have any objections to the following...content and
> > presentation? (I'm being a bit paranoid here because I sense that I am
> > setting a precedent, and I want to get it right).
> > ...
> I would put the big WARNING section at the top. Otherwise, some might
> skim the first few lines, and never read that they must run setup.exe
> What about people who use Cygwin but don't read the lists? They're
> not going to know about the special procedure required here.
Well, as it happens there will be no permanent damage. They'll end up
with only the -6 dll's, the base ncurses stuff, and the terminfo
database. There may be some list traffic, but the answer is:
Then, no more problem.
> Do you know what sorts of problems will be caused by updating all
> three packages in one go?
See above. (It's because setup installs packages in alphabetical
order). Hmm...note to self: will the dependency stuff in the new setup
rearrange installation order, or not? should it do so? What about
> What about users who run setup for the first time, installing all
> packages, the default? Will they have problems?
> I don't mean to sound negative, just thinking about the list traffic,
> and possibly a FAQ entry.
I *think* the only list traffic would be of the 'XXX broke; popup dialog
sez can't find cygncurses5.dll' variety. The answer is very simple.
(Takes less time to answer the questions than it does to say "Go read
the FAQ"). So, no real need IMO for a FAQ entry. (Of course, I am
continually amazed at some of the ... interesting ... questions raised
by ... uhm ... un-informed parties ...
> Apologies if I would already know this if I'd followed all the
> technical details. I didn't. I'm just thinking now about users
> problems and questions when (not if!) they get it wrong.
No, that's *exactly* the kind of stuff I was looking for.
- Raw text -