[EMAIL PROTECTED] i.e. Larry Hall, wrote:
> At 06:52 AM 8/18/2004, Hannu wrote:
>> "Larry Hall" scribbled on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 1:10 AM:
>>
>>> At 04:32 PM 8/17/2004, Hannu wrote:
>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] i.e. Larry Hall, wrote:
>>>>> At 05:39 AM 8/17/2004, you <as quoted by Larry - "Fergus"> wrote:
>>>> -zNIPz here and there-
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> While there _should_ be no requirements, one has to be realistic
>>>> and recognize this possibly beeing a setup - or postinstall -
>>>> malfunction triggered by the "nonstandard install location".
>>>
>>>
>>> That would be a bug. But since Fergus was asking whether Cygwin
>>> "expected" certain things in certain locations, the answer to that
>>> would be "no".
>>
>> Of course, that's the intention. Nothing said about that.
>>
>>> If it weren't "no", then anyone installing Cygwin to
>>> a drive other than C: would see problems. The lack of email to this
>>> list on the matter is just one indication that Cygwin has no
>>> expectations of where things live.
>>
>> The lack of messages might just as well be an indication of the
>> number of people actually trying this particular thing.
>>
>> SIDENOTE: I've seen situations where a person attempting something
>> similar just gives up immediately, without any questions. Just the
>> comment "Crap! I don't wanna bother more with it!". No help
>> requested even though there are several people knowledgable enough
>> standing within arms reach.
>> I've seen it not just once - and I must admit; I've done the same
>> myself! (Download free/shareware/whatever software; installation
>> doesn't work -> scrap it, try another similarily promising package)
>
>
> Sure, I can see that happening in a general sense with any software.
> But you're talking about generalities and (somewhat) philosophy. I'm
> targeting the question at hand. I don't disagree with your
> assertions in general/ philosophically but I'm avoiding discussion
> along this line in
> this thread.
>
>
>
>>> The code itself would be another.
>>
>> Hmm... I don't get this; is it a back reference to the "bug"-thing
>> above?
>
>
> What I meant was that if there were dependencies built in to Cygwin,
> they would show up in the code as well. They don't.
Right :-)
>>> ;-)
>>
>> Ahh, I *understand* this! ;-)
>>
>>
>>> If a postinstall script is making some such assumptions, I'd expect
>>> we would've heard quite a bit about that here too (or at
>>> cygwin-apps).
>>
>> Not all malfunctions/mishaps get reported - a report requires some
>> time and effort to put through; not to mention - the "WJM" attitude,
>> at display relatively often, plays part in this. Many people won't
>> stand up against it. It is desirable to have *good* problem reports,
>> but when you request higher quality you also filter away some. It is
>> a dilemma.
>
>
> OK, let me clarify. With the amount of people using Cygwin, some
> portion of those folks are going to install Cygwin somewhere other
> than "C:\Cygwin". If there was a problem with doing that, we would
> have heard about it in some volume (look at the volume of complaints
> we get about people not being able
> to start Cygwin from 'cygwin.bat', for example).
True, I have seen those. Very similar now as you mention it.
Which lessens the likelyhood of my SIDENOTE above. Sigh... ;-)
> My point is the
> premise that Cygwin requires, implicitly, some specific locations to
> work is something that would be *very* noticeable and would generate
> some traffic volume on this and/or the cygwin-apps list.
And your point is very clear, no objections from my side.
There is still one thing that _might_ cause problems; setup/cygwin
interactions with user and/or administrator enforced settings. This would
still fall into what I wrote about above.
> And I would
> have been one of the first to see the problem since I commonly install
> Cygwin on other drives and in other directories.
Right... I'm not doing a plain install very often I have to admit. Though I
always end up doing something nonstandard. (i.e. running the same install
from several OS'es, machines, from an unusual place... - which can be taken
as a sign of how well cygwin actually works in this regard ;-P )
> So, with my original
> response, I was simply stating that the premise of the inquiry was
> false and that something else locally is responsible for the behavior
> Fergus sees. I think that's good and useful information and quite on
> topic (Fergus and others are free to make their own determination of
> course! ;-) )
> ..., though I would say Fergus's original question
> is reasonably phrased and a fine question as far as it goes.
Agreed... no shadows fall on him. :-)
/Hannu E K Nevalainen, B.Sc. EE Microcomputer systems --72-->
** mailing list preference; please keep replies on list **
-- printf("LocalTime: UTC+%02d\n",(DST)? 2:1); --
--END OF MESSAGE--
--
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/
