On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 02:54:30PM -0600, Jeremy Bopp wrote: >On 1/28/2010 2:15 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 02:02:44PM -0600, Jeremy Bopp wrote: >>> On 1/28/2010 12:20 PM, Heath Kehoe wrote: >>>> Anyway, for now I'm going to just comment out the call to note() at >>>> install.cc:295 so that my users can do installations without having to >>>> dismiss that popup 52 times. >>> >>> Rather than build your own copy of setup.exe while you wait for this >>> defect to be fixed, why not use the --packages option for setup.exe to >>> select the set of packages you know you need from the command line? If >>> your users would have difficulty with that, you could write a simple >>> batch file to wrap the setup.exe invocation. >> >> OTOH, modifying source code and rolling your own copy is precisely why >> Free Software project exists in the first place. IMO, this is a great >> way of dealing with this kind of situation. I wish more people were >> willing to look at source code. > >True enough, and hopefully Heath will send along the patches to fix the >problem. It just seems in this case that distributing a locally built >setup.exe is a bit like hammering a finishing nail with a sledge hammer. > Yeah, it works, but it takes far more effort than required to do the >job. :-)
The alternative being to notify a presumably large user base of unknown technical competency about a change in procedure? Telling someone to "just use this binary" seems a lot simpler to me. cgf -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
