Re: CygWine 1.0 Beta -- an new cygwin package manager

[Brant Young <yospaly at gmail dot com>]

> I'm taking a quick browse through the code.  I see that you've based it on chunks of the core setup.exe code, somewhat refactored and restructured.

Yes, a lot of non-UI code were migrated from setup.exe.

> I wonder ... do you think that would be practical?

I think you made a wonderful proposal.

I'd like to see a common 'setup engine' separated from setup.exe, and
besides GUI front-ends, a console front-end is also necessary ( like
yum and apt-get in Linux, they are very convenient )

I suggest split current setup.exe to three components :

    * setup engine dll (which expose native C API, maintains package
install/remove/upgrade, dependence, download cache, notification
callbacks etc.)

    * setup console app ( just a front-end, process command line
options, main functions should implements in 'setup engine dll' )

    * setup GUI app ( GUI front-end )

Regards,

Brant

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 2:17 AM, Dave Korn
<dave.korn.cygwin@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Brant Young wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I have launched a opensource project -- CygWine ( a cygwin package
>> management utility, project homepage: http://cygwine.googlecode.com )
>>
>> CygWine 1.0 beta was just released, you can download the executable
>> and browse screenshots at http://cygwine.googlecode.com.
>>
>> Compared to cygwin official install tool -- setup.exe, CygWine is more
>> easy to use, has more intuitive UI.
>
>  I like the nice wx-based GUI, that's really pretty.
>
>> Currently, some of setup.exe features not supported by CygWine, I will
>> add more functions in the next release.
>>
>> I hope you will like it, suggestions and contributions are welcome.
>
>  I'm taking a quick browse through the code.  I see that you've based it on
> chunks of the core setup.exe code, somewhat refactored and restructured.  I
> wonder if we couldn't merge the two codebases, in such a way that there's one
> common 'setup engine' with a couple of alternative GUI front-ends; that might
> be a neat way to fix up all the missing features and make sure there is
> thoroughly consistent behaviour between the two different installers.  You
> know your own code better than I do - do you think that would be practical?
>
>    cheers,
>      DaveK
>
>
> --
> 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/
>
>

--
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/