The recent messages about in-use files and hosed postinstall reminded me
of this pending patch.
Ping.
Lapo liked it. Any comments from anyone else? Should we scrap the idea?
What's left to do, besides the obvious cleanup?
Igor
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Igor Peshansky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here'
On 16 February 2006 20:16, Lapo Luchini wrote:
> Dave Korn wrote:
>> Why must they? Why not just alt-tab to them and press enter?
>>
> Not so easy to send an alt-tab thru VNC, not using the X client, at least.
That would be a bug/limitation. The win32 version has a config option to
send comm
Dave Korn wrote:
> Why must they? Why not just alt-tab to them and press enter?
>
Not so easy to send an alt-tab thru VNC, not using the X client, at least.
Anyway, I'd consider the fact that the window sometimes appears behind,
being invisible and all, a bug wherever it had a work around or no
On 16 February 2006 08:50, Lapo Luchini wrote:
> behaviour... moreover in latest setup release those modal windows
> sometimes appear /under/ the main windows and are closable only with a
> combination of "alt-tab" and "enter", and must be killed altogether if
> using setup thru VNC
Why must t
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, Lapo Luchini wrote:
> Igor Peshansky wrote:
> > Umm, now I'm confused. There is nothing in the setup source that
> > would explain this behavior. Which version of setup are you using?
> > Which OS is this happening on? We *are* talking about the
> > "-r"/"--no-replaceonrebo
Igor Peshansky wrote:
> Umm, now I'm confused. There is nothing in the setup source that would
> explain this behavior. Which version of setup are you using? Which OS is
> this happening on? We *are* talking about the "-r"/"--no-replaceonreboot"
> option, right?
As I hate rebooting unless stric
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006, Lapo Luchini wrote:
> Igor Peshansky wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Feb 2006, Lapo Luchini wrote:
> >
> >> Igor Peshansky wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'd like some comments from people on both the behavior and my
> >>> assumptions.
> >>>
> >> I like the idea.
> >>
> >> I guess/hope this also sol
Igor Peshansky wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2006, Lapo Luchini wrote:
>
>
>> Igor Peshansky wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like some comments from people on both the behavior and my
>>> assumptions.
>>>
>> I like the idea.
>>
>> I guess/hope this also solves the "bug" that also if the command line
>>
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006, Lapo Luchini wrote:
> Igor Peshansky wrote:
> > I'd like some comments from people on both the behavior and my
> > assumptions.
>
> I like the idea.
>
> I guess/hope this also solves the "bug" that also if the command line
> option to waiting for files (i.e. NOT putting them o
Igor Peshansky wrote:
> I'd like some comments from people on both the behavior and my
> assumptions.
I like the idea.
I guess/hope this also solves the "bug" that also if the command line
option to waiting for files (i.e. NOT putting them on the reboot-list)
they are marked as not correctly insta
Hi,
Here's a quick and dirty patch to retry replacing in-use files. Unless
setup is running in unattended mode, it will show an Abort/Retry/Ignore
dialog warning the user that a particular file was in-use. The user can
"Retry" indefinitely, though the second and subsequent messages are going
to
11 matches
Mail list logo
