Greetings, Jon Turney! >> If neither --download nor --local-install is specified, the default >> is to repeat the same action as from the previous run. If no >> previous run can be found, the default is to perform both actions, >> and both actions can be explicitly requested by specifying both >> --download and --local-install.
> Note that I tweaked the behaviour of this a bit in [1] > [1] > https://cygwin.com/git/?p=cygwin-apps/setup.git;a=commit;h=147fc15d0222e050779b18a209991c258d85944f > I think that makes the current help text accurately describe > non-interactive mode. > There are some cases in interactive mode which are obscure (e.g. '-M' > without '-D' or '-L' gets you whatever mode you used last time without > showing you what it was, but I'm not sure if that needs to be here. >> In particular, the fact that the two options currently say they will >> "only" do their action, and that the default is to perform both, lead me >> to believe (a) the options were mutually exclusive and one would >> presumably override the other, (b) this was probably a legacy from >> before setup.rc stored the previous action, and therefore (c) if I was >> running setup with `-q` or `-M`, there was no way to get the supposedly >> default "do both" behaviour; I'd instead need to go through the full >> GUI. >> >> Having now seen how this setting is stored, I've realised I can just >> call setup with `-DL` and it'll perform both actions again. But I think >> my assumption that "default" was supposed to mean "default always" not >> "default only on first run" wasn't *entirely* PEBCAK (even if it mostly >> was), so that help text would definitely benefit from being made a bit >> more explicit. >> >> (I'm aware my suggestion above is decidedly wordy; it's not intended to >> be exactly what I think is required, only a first pass at clarifying the >> key details I think are missing.) > Perhaps the best thing would be to have something like > '--mode={download, install, somebetterwordforboth}' and document '-D' > and '-L' as short aliases for forms of that (which makes the modality > clear). Definitely no. You'd have to invent a "better word" first and that would be a whole new layer of explanation. I'd vote for removal of -M for unattended operations instead. (I.e. make -q and -M mutually exclusive.) I mean, this is an unattended operation, right? You HAVE TO be explicit in what results are expected from it. -- With best regards, Andrey Repin Thursday, February 3, 2022 11:35:30 Sorry for my terrible english... -- Problem reports: https://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: https://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: https://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
