Re: Proposal for changes to behavior in package list

["Larry Hall (Cygwin)" <reply-to-list-only-lh at cygwin dot com>]

On 4/19/2010 2:31 PM, Robert Pendell wrote:
> I have a proposal to the package list.
>
> First the issue at hand.  Packages that have additional dependencies
> add those dependencies without notifying the user indicating such.
> This also makes it difficult to remove packages which have cycling
> dependencies such as the X11 package set.  In the event of a removal
> the package selection has you click through package options in the
> order of Keep, Reinstall, Source, then Uninstall.
>
> The first suggestion would potentially affect all package entries but
> is equally useful for the issue however the latter option would only
> affect currently installed packages.  They both could be potentially
> implemented as they could be equally useful.
>
> First suggestion: Implement a prompt when a selected package has
> caused other packages to be marked as well.  This dialog would include
> the newly marked packages with a Yes/No prompt if the user wants them
> marked.  A warning could note that the packages may be required for
> the currently selected package to function.  The user could pick no
> and continue clicking away in the event they are going to uninstall it
> anyways which is a couple more clicks away.
>
> Second suggestion: Change the order of package options to Keep,
> Uninstall, Reinstall, Source.  This loop should prevent packages from
> being re-selected during intended uninstall actions such as may happen
> with the X11 packages.
>
> I would of gladly made the changes myself but I don't have any real
> programming experience.  I only dabble in shell scripting.

I think there's general agreement that the problem has less to do with
fact that the user isn't informed of these additional dependencies and
more to do with the issue of the current GUI control thwarting the
user's attempt to uninstall them when the user wants to.  While your
proposals do attempt to address this problem in a way that's probably
less work to implement, it makes sense to fix the core problem and
be done with it rather than skirt the issue.  There's certainly been
discussion about doing just that.

--
Larry Hall                              http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
216 Dalton Rd.                          (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746

_____________________________________________________________________

A: Yes.
> Q: Are you sure?
> > A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
> > > Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple