> I'm taking a quick browse through the code. I see that you've based it on
> chunks of the core setup.exe code, somewhat refactored and restructured.
Yes, a lot of non-UI code were migrated from setup.exe.
> I wonder ... do you think that would be practical?
I think you made a wonderful proposal.
I'd like to see a common 'setup engine' separated from setup.exe, and
besides GUI front-ends, a console front-end is also necessary ( like
yum and apt-get in Linux, they are very convenient )
I suggest split current setup.exe to three components :
* setup engine dll (which expose native C API, maintains package
install/remove/upgrade, dependence, download cache, notification
callbacks etc.)
* setup console app ( just a front-end, process command line
options, main functions should implements in 'setup engine dll' )
* setup GUI app ( GUI front-end )
Regards,
Brant
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 2:17 AM, Dave Korn
<dave.korn.cyg...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Brant Young wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I have launched a opensource project -- CygWine ( a cygwin package
>> management utility, project homepage: http://cygwine.googlecode.com )
>>
>> CygWine 1.0 beta was just released, you can download the executable
>> and browse screenshots at http://cygwine.googlecode.com.
>>
>> Compared to cygwin official install tool -- setup.exe, CygWine is more
>> easy to use, has more intuitive UI.
>
> I like the nice wx-based GUI, that's really pretty.
>
>> Currently, some of setup.exe features not supported by CygWine, I will
>> add more functions in the next release.
>>
>> I hope you will like it, suggestions and contributions are welcome.
>
> I'm taking a quick browse through the code. I see that you've based it on
> chunks of the core setup.exe code, somewhat refactored and restructured. I
> wonder if we couldn't merge the two codebases, in such a way that there's one
> common 'setup engine' with a couple of alternative GUI front-ends; that might
> be a neat way to fix up all the missing features and make sure there is
> thoroughly consistent behaviour between the two different installers. You
> know your own code better than I do - do you think that would be practical?
>
> cheers,
> DaveK
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
> Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
> Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
> FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
>
>
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
