Igor wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Hannu E K Nevalainen wrote:
>
>> Igor wrote:
>> <SNIP>
>>> How about just .INSTALLATION-PROFILES? Why have more than one
>>> category here?
>>
>> Ok ...or just .PROFILES then? (KISS?)
>
> <http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2005-11/msg00064.html>.
Yes :-] , but with my addition, which is essential IMO:
>> In combination w explaining words somewhere around the chooser:
>>
>> "Use (one) choice(s) from the .PROFILE group to slant your cygwin
>> installation against a specific intended use." (too many words?).
>
> We don't have category descriptions, unfortunately...
Therefore this should go above the chooser, if possible.
(Did somebody already suggest this too? *SNARL* ;-)
<SNIP>
>> Definition: GCAS := all the _GUI _Choosers/selections _And _Screens
>>
>> 1) Would it be hard to make a command line startup bypass GCAS and
>> head directly for installation? In this: Requiring choices to have
>> been made previously.
>
> Yes. The point is that GCAS is going to be involved in the package
> selection process, one way or another.
Which AFAIU makes up "2)" below...
> Even if you try to not
> materialize the GUI screens (which is a possibility), the code that
> deals with the package installation list is part of the GUI code.
Yes? How is this a problem? I was after creating the "installation list"
with the GUI as described here:
>> 2) Make it possible to run GCAS and the stop, with no
^^^-> then
>> download/install sequence at all; saving selections made to setup
>> file(s) - which can be reused. Intention: to allow a run of 1)
>> afterwards.
>
> This is essentially 1).
Eh? I find this confusing! ;-)
Should I understand that "the code is horribly intertwined" from this?
> The fact that the selections come from a file
> saved by the chooser as opposed to a file created by hand is
> reasonably irrelevant.
>
>> 3) make files created at 2) be checksummed and say "The settings
>> file(s) has a bad checksum and might have been tampered with
>> manually; BE WARNED! Remember \"WJM\" <evil laugh>" if the checksum
>> doesn't match.
>
> This is a completely separate issue.
Is it? e.g. "My installation list doesn't work!"
Reply: Use GCAS, or else... ! ;-)
>> And yes, SHTDI - but would it be a tedious task?
>
> Yes, most definitely.
I suspected that.
> It won't be very hard, but it will be tedious.
> And SHTDI does sum it up nicely. Enjoy. :-)
> Igor
PLAU! (Peace, Love And Understanding)
/H
--
