Re: Seeking a suggestion for unattended mass install procedure

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

On 11/4/2013 1:03 PM, Lavrentiev, Anton (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C] wrote:
> > Just make a list from that as part of your install script.
>
> That is the problem, right there.  I counted some 150 directories,
> many of which contain 10+ packages, easily.  A manageable install
> command would have looked like "setup.exe -L directory -a" to
> get and install everything it could have found under that directory,
> rather than a command that spans two or more screen-fulls to list all
> those packages.

I'm still not sure what you find so objectionable about this.  Are you
saying this won't work?  Or do you just not like it?

> Any other alternative, please?

As Eric points out, you don't really have to list all the packages,
just the dependencies.  So if you don't like the number of overall
packages to list, you can cut that down to a more reasonable number
by specifying only the top-level ones.  But that does require more
work to figure that out (though I'm assuming this happens once or
rarely, if this is really just an unattended install).  That's why
I suggested the alternative of just listing all the packages in the
download directory.  It's brute force but it's easy to do.

Alternatively, you can grab the sources for setup and add an option
to do what you want the way you want it.

--
Larry

_____________________________________________________________________

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