On 03 February 2006 02:34, Brian Dessent wrote:
> For example, suppose that the user installs Cygwin and then later
> installs CygwinBasedCommercialProduct (CBCP from here on.) The CBCP
> installer plays nice, notices that the user has Cygwin installed with the
> most recent DLL, so it does not install its own copy. Everyone is happy.
> But then say six months later the under removes Cygwin, unaware the CBCP
> was relying on its DLL, and now CBCP fails to start or fails in other
> strange ways. From the standpoint of the user, he doesn't really care
> what the underlying reason is, his CBCP now doesn't work and it's
> obviously a CBCP bug.
You talk like that's a bad thing. I say that's /exactly/ what we *want* to
happen. Then the users will go beat up the CBCP
provider instead of coming and flooding the list with offtopic requests for
support for a commercial product. :-D Sounds like a
win-win to me!
> You can repeat this scenario in several
> permutations, say for example if there are two CBCPs installed on the
> system, and one is using the DLL provided by the other.
> Upgrade/downgrade/remove one and the other breaks.
Yay! Even better! 3PP fight! As long as they're fighting each other
they're not giving us any hassle!
> I think at the end of the day, user education as to the nature of the
> problem is really what is required.
<hands Brian his LART>
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
--
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/
