Re: [HEADSUP] Base category

[Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>]

On Dec  9 23:19, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> 
> On 12/9/2014 10:46 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
> >On 12/9/2014 2:52 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>On Dec  9 14:10, Ken Brown wrote:
> >>>On 12/9/2014 12:48 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>>>Come to think of it.  When exactly do we want to allow installing
> >>>>packages without also installing the deps?  How much sense does
> >>>>this option really have?
> >>>
> >>>I've had occasion to do this when testing/debugging.  And I can imagine
> >>>experienced users who correctly know that they can safely ignore some
> >>>dependencies.  So I wouldn't want it to be impossible.  But maybe we can
> >>>arrange it so that dependencies are installed by default, without a
> >>>dialog,
> >>>unless the user has explicitly requested the contrary.
> >>>
> >>>For example, there could be a checkbox on an early screen saying
> >>>something
> >>>like, "For each selected package, install all of its dependencies
> >>>(RECOMMENDED)".  The box would of course be checked by default.
> >>
> >>Apart from the Base packages thingy which was my reason to start this
> >>thread, the dialog as such isn't bad.  It's pretty much the same thing
> >>as on Fedora (let's say, KDE's Apper), even more detailed.
> >>
> >>What about just not showing the "Select required packages (RECOMMEND)"
> >>check-box, unless you use a certain command line option?
> >
> >That sounds good.  Maybe --show-deps?

That sounds a bit ambiguous.  It's about the choice to not install
deps, not about showing deps at all.

> >Ken
> 
> To me sounds wrong the concept, why we should hide this check to
> the users ?
> I have seen recently too many wrong dependencies pullings extra
> unnecessary packages. I prefer to have users that could note the
> issue and complain instead of installing "everything but the kitchen sink"
> behind their back.

Did you (and Ken) get me wrong, by any chance?

What I was trying to say is *not* to remove the dependency dialog.  What
I was trying to say is *only* to remove the check box in that dialog,
which allows to install the selected packages without their dependencies.
Just this check box.

Such a check-box, or its equivalent on the command line, doesn't exist
in other installers either.  Giving the choice to install without the
dependencies is in 99% of the cases wrong.

If you install package A on Fedora, the installer will tell you it has
to install packages B, C, and D, to fullfill the dependencies for A.
The choice you have is to install A, B, C and D, or nothing at all.
There's no choice to install package A alone, which is what this
check box allows.

Again, the dialog itself is fine.  The choice to install without the
deps usually is not.  *Iff* it's fine, then only for users who know
what they are doing.

As for the dialog itself, I just think it would make sense to fullfil
deps of Base packages automatically.  If the user chooses to install
other packages outside Base, and these packages have additional deps,
then *of course* the additional deps should show up in that dialog.

Does that clarify what I mean?  I'm sorry if my original mail was
unclear.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Attachment: pgpOszryjjTl8.pgp
Description: PGP signature