Surely if you were bothering to make a CD you'd want to include everything anyway, thus you wouldn't need dependency checking.
Mark. -----Original Message----- From: Markus Hoenicka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 01 March 2002 15:51 To: Randall R Schulz; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: "local install"? Randall, the original poster's suggestion was not to use setup.exe to download the packages, but rather a linux box. This way you lose the dependency tracking in setup.exe (it does not run on Linux afaik), and to make sure you don't miss a dependency and thus waste a CD you'd have to download *all* available packages which is a waste of time. I'm afraid you misunderstood my comments on this issue. I fully agree that using setup.exe to first download and later install the packages is the most versatile way of doing things. I just pointed out that manually downloading the packages, thus bypassing setup.exe in the first place, will have issues. regards, Markus Randall R Schulz writes: > >You lose a lot of the functionality of setup.exe if you do it this way but > >you can certainly do this if you want to have a hard time. > > > I don't understand this. You get maximum flexibility by separate "Download > from Internet" and "Install from Local Directory" operations. That way you > can download sources and have them at hand without unconditionally > installing them. > > By copying my local installation cache to a CD, I can save others very > large downloads. > > I cannot see this as a loss of functionality. > > Can you tell me some functionality only available when one uses "Install > from Internet?" > > Randall Schulz > Mountain View, CA USA -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
