Cygintl-3.dll was not found

[Roberto Sapiens]

Hello, all:

I have dowloaded Cygwin from cygwin.com web site. From that download,
I have installed Cygwin with no problems in a Windows 2000 Pro
computer. However, when I try to install Cygwin in my Windows XP Home
Edition notebook, I see a message that says Cygintl-3.dll was not
found and bash.exe crashes. How to solve this problem?

[]s,

Roberto

[Brian Dessent]

Post by Roberto Sapiens
I have dowloaded Cygwin from cygwin.com web site. From that download,
I have installed Cygwin with no problems in a Windows 2000 Pro
computer. However, when I try to install Cygwin in my Windows XP Home
Edition notebook, I see a message that says Cygintl-3.dll was not
found and bash.exe crashes. How to solve this problem?

That means that you deselected a required package in setup. Rerun
setup, let it choose any missing dependencies, and make sure libintl3 is
selected.

Brian

[infoterror]

Post by Brian Dessent

Post by Roberto Sapiens
I have dowloaded Cygwin from cygwin.com web site. From that download,
I have installed Cygwin with no problems in a Windows 2000 Pro
computer. However, when I try to install Cygwin in my Windows XP Home
Edition notebook, I see a message that says Cygintl-3.dll was not
found and bash.exe crashes. How to solve this problem?

That means that you deselected a required package in setup. Rerun
setup, let it choose any missing dependencies, and make sure libintl3 is
selected.

Here is the relevant information:

9. How do I just get everything?

Long ago, the default was to install everything, much to the irritation of
most users. Now the default is to install only a basic core of packages.
Cygwin Setup is designed to make it easy to browse categories and select
what you want to install or omit from those categories. It's also easy to
install everything:

1. At the ``Select Packages'' screen, in ``Categories'' view, at the line
marked ``All'', click on the word ``default'' so that it changes to
``install''. (Be patient, there is some computing to do at this step. It may
take a second or two to register the change.) This tells Setup to install
everything, not just what it thinks you should have by default.

http://cygwin.com/faq/faq.setup.html#faq.setup.what-packages

Notes:

The cygwin installer is a disaster. If this project follows the norm of
"open source" projects, you will be accused of incompetence and/or
conspiracy with Microsoft if you point this out. However, it's obvious.

Based on two installs I did, it's easy to get the "cygintl-3.dll problem"
without doing anything wrong. Sometimes the installer (or perhaps the mirror
site?) fails to include it even though it seems necessary.

I find it somewhat amusing that UNIX activists choose to try to convert
windows people by using non-standard installers that don't work. This is the
mark of a "thin intelligence," or someone who can handle pre-defined tasks
but is incapable of critical thinking.

[Christopher Faylor]

Post by infoterror

Post by Brian Dessent

Post by Roberto Sapiens
I have dowloaded Cygwin from cygwin.com web site. From that download,
I have installed Cygwin with no problems in a Windows 2000 Pro
computer. However, when I try to install Cygwin in my Windows XP Home
Edition notebook, I see a message that says Cygintl-3.dll was not
found and bash.exe crashes. How to solve this problem?

That means that you deselected a required package in setup. Rerun
setup, let it choose any missing dependencies, and make sure libintl3 is
selected.

9. How do I just get everything?
Long ago, the default was to install everything, much to the irritation of
most users. Now the default is to install only a basic core of packages.
Cygwin Setup is designed to make it easy to browse categories and select
what you want to install or omit from those categories. It's also easy to
1. At the ``Select Packages'' screen, in ``Categories'' view, at the line
marked ``All'', click on the word ``default'' so that it changes to
``install''. (Be patient, there is some computing to do at this step. It may
take a second or two to register the change.) This tells Setup to install
everything, not just what it thinks you should have by default.
http://cygwin.com/faq/faq.setup.html#faq.setup.what-packages
The cygwin installer is a disaster. If this project follows the norm of
"open source" projects, you will be accused of incompetence and/or
conspiracy with Microsoft if you point this out. However, it's obvious.
Based on two installs I did, it's easy to get the "cygintl-3.dll problem"
without doing anything wrong. Sometimes the installer (or perhaps the mirror
site?) fails to include it even though it seems necessary.
I find it somewhat amusing that UNIX activists choose to try to convert
windows people by using non-standard installers that don't work. This is the
mark of a "thin intelligence," or someone who can handle pre-defined tasks
but is incapable of critical thinking.

Standard response #4.

Humorous vaguely insulting allusion.

Droll conclusion.

cgf

(Sorry, couldn't generate much enthusiasm for this troll. Regular readers
should be able to fill in the blanks here.)

(Btw, infoterrier, your email is being archived. Did you know that?)

[infoterror]

Standard response of the underconfident: accuse legitimate critics of being
illegitimate sources, e.g. trolls.

"Don't listen to the witch!"

[Dave Korn]

On 09 August 2006 02:44, infoterror wrote:

This thread was over a month ago and the guy went away happy with a solution
to his problems. What exactly do you have to add to it?

Post by infoterror
Based on two installs I did, it's easy to get the "cygintl-3.dll problem"
without doing anything wrong. Sometimes the installer (or perhaps the mirror
site?) fails to include it even though it seems necessary.

This is a very poor bug report. "Sometimes it goes wrong"? Not remotely
enough information. Can you state a simple procedure that anyone can follow
to reproduce this bug? Reproducing it is vital to help us determine whether
it's something in the software or something in the OS environment or hardware
where you are using it.

Post by infoterror
I find it somewhat amusing that UNIX activists choose to try to convert
windows people by using non-standard installers that don't work. This is the
mark of a "thin intelligence," or someone who can handle pre-defined tasks
but is incapable of critical thinking.

You're the one who is complaining about something being non-standard. Your
desire for conformity belies your claims to out-of-the-box thinking ability.


cheers,
DaveK

[infoterror]

Remember, I predicted the "thin intelligences" would lash out at those from
outside their tribe who dare comment on their work. They're underconfident
and unstable, and would rather accuse others of being wrong than admit

Post by Dave Korn
This thread was over a month ago and the guy went away happy
with a solution to his problems.

Problems remain and I'm pointing them out. You don't want to get better at
what you're doing, don't you?

Post by Dave Korn
Can you state a simple procedure that anyone can follow
to reproduce this bug? Reproducing it is vital to help us determine whether
it's something in the software or something in the OS environment or hardware
where you are using it.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Under windows XP, download setup.exe.
Run it and select "download files for installation."
Save these files to CD-R and carry to remote location.
When you install cygwin, and attempt to run bash, it will come up with the
cygintl-3.dll error.

Post by Dave Korn
You're the one who is complaining about something being non-standard. Your
desire for conformity belies your claims to out-of-the-box thinking ability.

No, my friend, wanting to be dysfunctional instead of seeing the truth is
the ultimate conformity.

When one is in a Windows environment, it makes sense to adapt one's product
to those standards.

That's like speaking English on this list, because it's in English. If I
wanted to be your kind of nonconformist, I'd speak Tagalog and then accuse
you of being closed-minded and conformist when you didn't respond in kind.

Another note:

Under windows, programs are installed by default in "C:\Program Files."
cygwin's preferred "c:\cygwin" is foolish and makes an unnecessary mess of
installations.

[mwoehlke]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[infoterror]

Post by mwoehlke
Cygwin's "c:\cygwin" contains AN ENTIRE (virtual) FILESYSTEM. I don't
know about you, but *I* sure don't want that sort of thing under
"Program Files" (besides which, POSIX-ish systems don't really
appreciate spaces in file/path names).

1. You're running cygwin on a Windows system. Local standards, not POSIX,
need apply.

2. Works fine for VMware :)

[Larry Hall (Cygwin)]

Under windows XP, download setup.exe. Run it and select "download files for
installation." Save these files to CD-R and carry to remote location. When
you install cygwin, and attempt to run bash, it will come up with the
cygintl-3.dll error.

Have you tried this with the recently announced setup.exe snapshot?

[infoterror]

Post by Larry Hall (Cygwin)
Have you tried this with the recently announced setup.exe snapshot?

If it was announced after the first reply I made to this list, no.

[Christopher Faylor]

Post by infoterror
Remember, I predicted the "thin intelligences" would lash out at those from
outside their tribe who dare comment on their work.

It really isn't that hard to predict what kind of response you'll get.
When one uses confrontational language as a first foray into a public
forum, it is easy to predict that one will not necessarily receive
measured, informed responses.

Post by infoterror
They're underconfident and unstable, and would rather accuse others of

If you have such little confidence in the intelligence of the people who
run the project, you really should not be using Cygwin at all, should
you? Given all of the things Cygwin purports to do, it seems like it
could be a dangerous to run, given that it is developed by people who
can only handle pre-defined tasks and are incapable of critical
decisions. If we made such stupid choices about our use of installer
and location for installation, who knows what kind of deadly decisions
we made in the guts of the program?

Btw, have you noticed that the only thing you've been "accused" of so
far is being a troll? In my experience, when people employ this type of
confrontational personal communication (accusing people of being
underconfident and unstable) it is usually pretty indicative of someone
who doesn't really want to discuss issues. However, no one has yet
attempted to offer you a pseudo-psychological assessment. Does that
give you pause at all?

I'll gladly drop the troll assumption if you're willing to forgo terms
like "a disaster", "underconfident", "unstable", "foolish". Are you
willing to do that?

Post by infoterror

Post by Dave Korn
This thread was over a month ago and the guy went away happy with a
solution to his problems.

Problems remain and I'm pointing them out. You don't want to get
better at what you're doing, don't you?

I can't speak for Dave but when you posted a section of the FAQ under
"Here is the relevant information:" it seemed to me like you were still
trying to address the OP's concerns after they had already been dealt
with.

Post by infoterror

Post by Dave Korn
Can you state a simple procedure that anyone can follow to reproduce
this bug? Reproducing it is vital to help us determine whether it's
something in the software or something in the OS environment or
hardware where you are using it.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Yes, we are, aren't we? In fact it almost seems like Dave was willing
to admit that a problem existed wasn't he? Hmm.

Post by infoterror

Post by Dave Korn
You're the one who is complaining about something being non-standard. Your
desire for conformity belies your claims to out-of-the-box thinking ability.

No, my friend, wanting to be dysfunctional instead of seeing the truth is
the ultimate conformity.
When one is in a Windows environment, it makes sense to adapt one's product
to those standards.

Standards such as? A pointer to a free installer which uses Windows
standards and which will handle Cygwin's needs would be useful, e.g.,
would NSIS meet your needs? We've discussed using NSIS in the past.

I'm sure that there must be some out there and since you have such
strong feelings on the matter, maybe you're familiar with them? If
you're not that's ok. I'm just curious.

FYI, you seem to be implying that this is some sort of UNIX installer
when it really is just a home-grown Windows installer designed to handle
Cygwin's needs. I have no problems with the user interface but I do
understand that some Windows users find it unintuitive.

Post by infoterror
Under windows, programs are installed by default in "C:\Program Files."
cygwin's preferred "c:\cygwin" is foolish and makes an unnecessary mess
of installations.

I disagree. Not all packages install in "c:\Program Files" and putting
Cygwin's root directory there would mean extra typing, potential
"filename with spaces" problems, and, most importantly, it would mean 10
extra characters eaten from the MAX_PATH limit. Also, as is pointed out
later in this thread, there is a whole filesystem underneath the
c:\cygwin directory. Right or wrong, I've always considered Cygwin to
be sort of a parallel to the Windows directory.

You can, of course, choose your own location, however. I don't see why
this should be a big issue for anyone who installs Cygwin. If they know
about "c:\Program Files" and think that's the place that cygwin should
go, they are welcome to put things there.

What kind of problems do you think are being caused by installing to
"c:\cygwin" and/or what kind of problems would be solved by installing
to "c:\Program Files\cygwin"?

cgf

[Tevfik Karagülle]

Post by Christopher Faylor
Standards such as? A pointer to a free installer which uses
Windows standards and which will handle Cygwin's needs would
be useful, e.g., would NSIS meet your needs? We've discussed
using NSIS in the past.

Can anyone give me a qualified reference about the requirements
of a core cygwin environment ? I would like to try to develop
an NSIS installer for it.

Rgrds Tev

http://itefix.no

[Christopher Faylor]

Post by Christopher Faylor
Standards such as? A pointer to a free installer which uses Windows
standards and which will handle Cygwin's needs would be useful, e.g.,
would NSIS meet your needs? We've discussed using NSIS in the past.

Can anyone give me a qualified reference about the requirements of a
core cygwin environment ? I would like to try to develop an NSIS
installer for it.

Huh? setup.exe installs a "core cygwin environment" right now.
What kind of reference would you be expecting other than the
operation of the current installer?

cgf

[Dave Korn]

Post by Christopher Faylor

Post by Christopher Faylor
Standards such as? A pointer to a free installer which uses Windows
standards and which will handle Cygwin's needs would be useful, e.g.,
would NSIS meet your needs? We've discussed using NSIS in the past.

Can anyone give me a qualified reference about the requirements of a
core cygwin environment ? I would like to try to develop an NSIS
installer for it.

Huh? setup.exe installs a "core cygwin environment" right now.
What kind of reference would you be expecting other than the
operation of the current installer?
cgf

I imagine Tevfik just wants us to enumerate the things it needs to do:

1) Allow package selection and handle dependencies, based on setup.ini
information and the content of the local package store.
2) Create basic cygwin registry mountpoints if they don't already exist.
3) Untar selected package tarballs in cygwin root directory when installing,
delete previously installed files when uninstalling.
4) Run preuninstall and postinstall scripts as requested.
5) Maintain suitable setup.db information for cygcheck to continue working.
6) Optionally create desktop / start menu shortcuts.

Does that cover all the essentials?

cheers,
DaveK

[Igor Peshansky]

Post by Dave Korn

Post by Christopher Faylor

Post by Christopher Faylor
Standards such as? A pointer to a free installer which uses Windows
standards and which will handle Cygwin's needs would be useful, e.g.,
would NSIS meet your needs? We've discussed using NSIS in the past.

Can anyone give me a qualified reference about the requirements of a
core cygwin environment ? I would like to try to develop an NSIS
installer for it.

Huh? setup.exe installs a "core cygwin environment" right now.
What kind of reference would you be expecting other than the
operation of the current installer?
cgf

1) Allow package selection and handle dependencies, based on setup.ini
information and the content of the local package store.
2) Create basic cygwin registry mountpoints if they don't already exist.
3) Untar selected package tarballs in cygwin root directory when installing,
delete previously installed files when uninstalling.
4) Run preuninstall and postinstall scripts as requested.
5) Maintain suitable setup.db information for cygcheck to continue working.
6) Optionally create desktop / start menu shortcuts.
Does that cover all the essentials?

7) Run preremove scripts on uninstalls.
8) Allow installing package sources.
Igor
--
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
|\ _,,,---,,_ ***@cs.nyu.edu | ***@watson.ibm.com
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!)
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' old name: Igor Pechtchanski
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!

"Las! je suis sot... -Mais non, tu ne l'es pas, puisque tu t'en rends compte."
"But no -- you are no fool; you call yourself a fool, there's proof enough in
that!" -- Rostand, "Cyrano de Bergerac"

[Tevfik Karagülle]

Thanks.

According to the setup.exe default package information,
Following 41 packages forms 'a core cygwin environment':

---------------------------
Alternatives ash base-files base-passwd bash coreutils
cygwin cygwin-doc diffutils editrights findutils gawk gdbm
Grep gzip libgdbm lidgdbm-devel libgdbm3 libgdbm4
libncurses5 libncurses6 libncurses7 libncurses8 libreadline4
Libreadline5 libreadline6 login man ncurses run sed
Tar termcap terminfo which zlib cygwin-doc man gawk
Termcap zlib
---------------------------

In the first phase, I can think of producing a monolithic
installer for the core environment performing tasks
below:

- Create basic cygwin registry mountpoints
- untar packages
- run the postinstall script
- Create start menu items and shortcuts (optional)
- maintain setub.db (how?)

Would that be a valid cygwin installation ?

Second phase could be to introduce upgrade functionality.

Rgrds Tev

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 6:17 PM
To: Dave Korn
Subject: Re: Setup.exe requirements [was RE: Cygintl-3.dll
was not found]

Post by Dave Korn

Post by Christopher Faylor

Post by Tevfik Karagülle

Post by Christopher Faylor
Standards such as? A pointer to a free installer which uses
Windows standards and which will handle Cygwin's needs would be
useful, e.g., would NSIS meet your needs? We've

discussed using NSIS in the past.

Post by Dave Korn

Post by Christopher Faylor

Post by Tevfik Karagülle
Can anyone give me a qualified reference about the

requirements of

Post by Dave Korn

Post by Christopher Faylor

Post by Tevfik Karagülle
a core cygwin environment ? I would like to try to

develop an NSIS

Post by Dave Korn

Post by Christopher Faylor

Post by Tevfik Karagülle
installer for it.

Huh? setup.exe installs a "core cygwin environment" right now.
What kind of reference would you be expecting other than the
operation of the current installer?
cgf

I imagine Tevfik just wants us to enumerate the things it
1) Allow package selection and handle dependencies, based on
setup.ini information and the content of the local package store.
2) Create basic cygwin registry mountpoints if they don't

already exist.

Post by Dave Korn
3) Untar selected package tarballs in cygwin root directory when
installing, delete previously installed files when uninstalling.
4) Run preuninstall and postinstall scripts as requested.
5) Maintain suitable setup.db information for cygcheck to

continue working.

Post by Dave Korn
6) Optionally create desktop / start menu shortcuts.
Does that cover all the essentials?

7) Run preremove scripts on uninstalls.
8) Allow installing package sources.
Igor
--
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ Igor Peshansky, Ph.D.
(name changed!)
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' old name: Igor Pechtchanski
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
"Las! je suis sot... -Mais non, tu ne l'es pas, puisque tu
t'en rends compte."
"But no -- you are no fool; you call yourself a fool, there's
proof enough in that!" -- Rostand, "Cyrano de Bergerac"

[Christopher Faylor]

Post by Tevfik Karagülle
Thanks.
According to the setup.exe default package information,
---------------------------
Alternatives ash base-files base-passwd bash coreutils
cygwin cygwin-doc diffutils editrights findutils gawk gdbm
Grep gzip libgdbm lidgdbm-devel libgdbm3 libgdbm4
libncurses5 libncurses6 libncurses7 libncurses8 libreadline4
Libreadline5 libreadline6 login man ncurses run sed
Tar termcap terminfo which zlib cygwin-doc man gawk
Termcap zlib
---------------------------
In the first phase, I can think of producing a monolithic
installer for the core environment performing tasks
- Create basic cygwin registry mountpoints
- untar packages
- run the postinstall script
- Create start menu items and shortcuts (optional)
- maintain setub.db (how?)
Would that be a valid cygwin installation ?
Second phase could be to introduce upgrade functionality.

You shouldn't worry about "a core cygwin environment". Just worry about
dealing correctly with dependencies and understanding categories like
"Base". The packages in setup.ini which are in the Base category + all
of their dependencies are what constitute the base Cygwin installation.
However, it seems to me that if you understand Base and dependencies,
then you don't really need to worry about Base at all.

cgf

[infoterror]

Post by Tevfik Karagülle
According to the setup.exe default package information,

I think this kind of thinking makes a lot of sense when dealing with the
desktop paradigm, and will empower more users to enjoy the benefits of
cygwin.

[infoterror]

Post by Tevfik Karagülle
In the first phase, I can think of producing a monolithic
installer for the core environment performing tasks
- Create basic cygwin registry mountpoints
- untar packages
- run the postinstall script
- Create start menu items and shortcuts (optional)
- maintain setub.db (how?)
Would that be a valid cygwin installation ?
Second phase could be to introduce upgrade functionality.

This is an excellent idea. I spoke to a friend via phone two nights ago who
added another request: perhaps, if packages are listed in an updated, there
can be some explanation visible of what they are, possibly even a column in
the interface:

package-name (other config data) Libraries for input/output and
intoxication.

?

[infoterror]

Post by Christopher Faylor
FYI, you seem to be implying that this is some sort of UNIX installer
when it really is just a home-grown Windows installer designed to handle
Cygwin's needs. I have no problems with the user interface but I do
understand that some Windows users find it unintuitive.

When installing under windows, it makes sense to use the standard (.msi) and
style of windows installers. It is rude to go into a room full of people
speaking Tagalog and insist they speak English; similarly, when one wants
something to work under windows, it should adapt to that standard.

Post by Christopher Faylor
I disagree. Not all packages install in "c:\Program Files" and putting
Cygwin's root directory there would mean extra typing, potential
"filename with spaces" problems, and, most importantly, it would mean 10
extra characters eaten from the MAX_PATH limit. Also, as is pointed out
later in this thread, there is a whole filesystem underneath the
c:\cygwin directory. Right or wrong, I've always considered Cygwin to
be sort of a parallel to the Windows directory.

To a windows user, it is an application.

Installing all program files into c:\Program Files provides the user a
consistent interface. Some in the corporate world seek to mystify this, but
their apps are acknowledged by experienced windows people as errant.

Another way to put this: if you were a corporate MIS/IT/etc department head
and you wanted to keep machines organized, you would probably have all
software installed in the same location. Makes backup easy. Makes it
immediately discernible what must be moved/modified if there's a problem
with a machine.

Post by Christopher Faylor
You can, of course, choose your own location, however. I don't see why
this should be a big issue for anyone who installs Cygwin. If they know
about "c:\Program Files" and think that's the place that cygwin should
go, they are welcome to put things there.

Instead of making more work for them to do it right, why not just do it
right from the start?

Post by Christopher Faylor
What kind of problems do you think are being caused by installing to
"c:\cygwin" and/or what kind of problems would be solved by installing
to "c:\Program Files\cygwin"?

Please see above.

[gdiviney]

Yep, I agree whole-heartedly. I ran across this thread because (guess what?)
the install package did not deliver this file (and I can only guess which
others). I’ve reviewed the thread and, as you note, you were attacked for
pointing out the obvious…

Apparently, if you’re a Cygwin believer or developer:

- You’re automatically right

- You think there’s nothing wrong with forcing every single user to spend
hours sifting through artifacts of your failed install package to provide a
detailed and explicit report of what when wrong and how to fix it before
taking action.

- Insulting your users who become frustrated due to your own shabby work is
perfectly OK.

Some tips for Cygwin people:

- When a user selects a set of items to install, perhaps the install package
should deliver all the necessary files to make it work.

- When a user complains about a file not being delivered, maybe instead of
insulting them, you can first assume your package has err’d until it’s shown
otherwise.

I guess I’ll keep looking for a solution for the issue that begat this
thread, since I have encountered the same problem.

A one-hour compiler class assignment has become an all-day goose-hunt.
Thanks Cygwin developers! Maybe someday I’ll have the opportunity to waste
an entire day of your lives. If it weren’t for schools, your aberrant work
would have been forgotten long ago.

Post by infoterror
The cygwin installer is a disaster. If this project follows the norm of
"open source" projects, you will be accused of incompetence and/or
conspiracy with Microsoft if you point this out. However, it's obvious.
Based on two installs I did, it's easy to get the "cygintl-3.dll problem"
without doing anything wrong. Sometimes the installer (or perhaps the
mirror site?) fails to include it even though it seems necessary.
I find it somewhat amusing that UNIX activists choose to try to convert
windows people by using non-standard installers that don't work. This is
the mark of a "thin intelligence," or someone who can handle pre-defined
tasks but is incapable of critical thinking.

[Christopher Faylor]

Post by gdiviney
Yep, I agree whole-heartedly. I ran across this thread because (guess what?)
the install package did not deliver this file (and I can only guess which
others). I???ve reviewed the thread and, as you note, you were attacked for
pointing out the obvious???

Actually, if you read the thread, the person doing the attacking was
"infoterrier" who assumed a bunch of things about cygwin development out
of the gate.

He did the same thing you are doing. Rather than ask for help, he
vented inappropriate frustration and anger at strangers who were giving
him free stuff because he couldn't figure out how to use the free stuff.

He didn't initially provide any details which would allow anyone to help
him. Just like you.

He responded to a message long after the original poster had been
helped. Just like you.

So, IMO, he really is not someone to emulate or with whom to seek
solidarity.

I don't know why cygintl-3.dll was not installed for you. The installer
is supposed to install it. If it didn't, that's a bug. We have no idea
what steps you took to get into a state where the file was not installed
and your confrontational style seems to be tailor made to turn people
off towards helping you find out what went wrong.

Maybe that was your intent. Otherwise, it's certainly hard to figure
out why you would attack strangers who give you free stuff no matter how
bad the "stuff" was. We didn't force you to download it but, if you
have problems and can state them clearly and politely, we're willing to
help.

Post by gdiviney
- Insulting your users who become frustrated due to your own shabby
work is perfectly OK.
- When a user selects a set of items to install, perhaps the install package
should deliver all the necessary files to make it work.
- When a user complains about a file not being delivered, maybe instead of
insulting them, you can first assume your package has err???d until it???s shown
otherwise.
I guess I???ll keep looking for a solution for the issue that begat this
thread, since I have encountered the same problem.
A one-hour compiler class assignment has become an all-day goose-hunt.
Thanks Cygwin developers! Maybe someday I???ll have the opportunity to
waste an entire day of your lives. If it weren???t for schools, your
aberrant work would have been forgotten long ago.

If you don't like our shabby work or our attitude then you have a really
simple solution - stay far away from Cygwin. If some school or
professor is forcing you to use Cygwin, then take your complaint to
them. We really couldn't care less about your inability to figure out the
software when you can't muster the civility to ask for help politely.

(And, actually, we probably wouldn't care all that much even if you did
ask politely, but we would still try to help anyway)

Btw, if it took you all day to do a google search for Cygintl-3.dll,
that also tells us a little bit about you and, what it tells us, is not
all that impressive.

cgf

[gdiviney]

I'm not going to get into a discussion about my assumptions or yours. You
have no idea who I am, what I have done or not done to solve this problem,
or even if I have solved this problem. You have no idea what forums I have
been in, how often I encounter or use Cygwin, or what my level of expertise
is. You are not qualified to discuss my assumptions, nor am I qualified to
discuss yours. However, a simple search for the file that is the topic of
the root of this thread will yield over 12,000 matches, and nearly all
appear to be "missing-bug" related. Thus, my criticism has credential and is
well deserved.

Furthermore, if Cygwin wants to be used by the windows community, then it
needs to be palatable to windows users. Not Linux users who occasionally
find themselves forced to use a windows box. Many of us are competent
developers who have better things to do than spend time pouring through
install procedures and innumerable tar files when modern methods have
rendered that kind of delivery, in this context, utterly unnecessary.

Post by Christopher Faylor

Post by gdiviney
Yep, I agree whole-heartedly. I ran across this thread because (guess what?)
the install package did not deliver this file (and I can only guess which
others). I???ve reviewed the thread and, as you note, you were attacked for
pointing out the obvious???

Actually, if you read the thread, the person doing the attacking was
"infoterrier" who assumed a bunch of things about cygwin development out
of the gate.
He did the same thing you are doing. Rather than ask for help, he
vented inappropriate frustration and anger at strangers who were giving
him free stuff because he couldn't figure out how to use the free stuff.
He didn't initially provide any details which would allow anyone to help
him. Just like you.
He responded to a message long after the original poster had been
helped. Just like you.
So, IMO, he really is not someone to emulate or with whom to seek
solidarity.
I don't know why cygintl-3.dll was not installed for you. The installer
is supposed to install it. If it didn't, that's a bug. We have no idea
what steps you took to get into a state where the file was not installed
and your confrontational style seems to be tailor made to turn people
off towards helping you find out what went wrong.
Maybe that was your intent. Otherwise, it's certainly hard to figure
out why you would attack strangers who give you free stuff no matter how
bad the "stuff" was. We didn't force you to download it but, if you
have problems and can state them clearly and politely, we're willing to
help.

Post by gdiviney
- Insulting your users who become frustrated due to your own shabby
work is perfectly OK.
- When a user selects a set of items to install, perhaps the install package
should deliver all the necessary files to make it work.
- When a user complains about a file not being delivered, maybe instead of
insulting them, you can first assume your package has err???d until it???s shown
otherwise.
I guess I???ll keep looking for a solution for the issue that begat this
thread, since I have encountered the same problem.
A one-hour compiler class assignment has become an all-day goose-hunt.
Thanks Cygwin developers! Maybe someday I???ll have the opportunity to
waste an entire day of your lives. If it weren???t for schools, your
aberrant work would have been forgotten long ago.

If you don't like our shabby work or our attitude then you have a really
simple solution - stay far away from Cygwin. If some school or
professor is forcing you to use Cygwin, then take your complaint to
them. We really couldn't care less about your inability to figure out the
software when you can't muster the civility to ask for help politely.
(And, actually, we probably wouldn't care all that much even if you did
ask politely, but we would still try to help anyway)
Btw, if it took you all day to do a google search for Cygintl-3.dll,
that also tells us a little bit about you and, what it tells us, is not
all that impressive.
cgf
--
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/

[Larry Hall (Cygwin)]

Post by gdiviney
I'm not going to get into a discussion about my assumptions or yours. You
have no idea who I am, what I have done or not done to solve this problem,
or even if I have solved this problem. You have no idea what forums I have
been in, how often I encounter or use Cygwin, or what my level of expertise
is. You are not qualified to discuss my assumptions, nor am I qualified to
discuss yours. However, a simple search for the file that is the topic of
the root of this thread will yield over 12,000 matches, and nearly all
appear to be "missing-bug" related. Thus, my criticism has credential and is
well deserved.

Well, I did the following Google search:

<http://www.google.com/search?as_q=cygint-3.dll&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=cygwin.com&as_rights=&safe=images>

This seemed like a fairly obvious search to me. I got 2 results. The first
was the original poster with a similar problem and the second was the reply
from someone on this list. The person (Brian Dessent) explained how to find
the needed package.

Post by gdiviney
Furthermore, if Cygwin wants to be used by the windows community, then it
needs to be palatable to windows users. Not Linux users who occasionally
find themselves forced to use a windows box. Many of us are competent
developers who have better things to do than spend time pouring through
install procedures and innumerable tar files when modern methods have
rendered that kind of delivery, in this context, utterly unnecessary.

It is not a goal of this project to have these tools be used by the "windows
community". However, if individuals or groups in this community find the
tools useful, it is also not a goal to keep them from using them. ;-)

[gdiviney]

Oh, i though otherwise. never mind then :)

-g

Post by Larry Hall (Cygwin)
It is not a goal of this project to have these tools be used by the "windows
community". However, if individuals or groups in this community find the
tools useful, it is also not a goal to keep them from using them. ;-)
--
Larry Hall http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc. [phone] - RFK Office
216 Dalton Rd. [phone] - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746
--
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/

[infoterror]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[Christopher Faylor]

Post by infoterror

Post by gdiviney
A one-hour compiler class assignment has become an all-day goose-hunt.
Thanks Cygwin developers! Maybe someday I???ll have the opportunity to
waste an entire day of your lives. If it weren???t for schools, your
aberrant work would have been forgotten long ago.

Agreed.

So you, infoterror, are also a student? That's interesting.

Given the number of people in this mailing list from companies who run
Cygwin, it's hard to see how you could have any basis for your opinion.

Post by infoterror
While I like the idea of free software, and giving things away free, I
think they should be done sensibly and pragmatically. Saving people
time is fine. Writing off all complaints with "well, it's free, what
did you expect?" is the same kind of crass capitalism I see in the
pornography flooding the internet.

Hmm. Now I really understand why your opinion of Cygwin is so low if
you equate giving away software and volunteering time with "capitalism".

Incidentally, your statement that "all complaints" are written off is
provably untrue. Even this resurrected thread shows people who are
willing to help with problems.

What is true about free software is that you, as the user of same, would
be best advised to be deferential and factual if you desire help. It
makes no sense to be insulting. If the software doesn't meet your needs
or doesn't seem to work then outrage is not really, IMO, a pragmatic
response since you could easily alienate the people who could help you.

If you didn't really want help then there doesn't seem to be much point
in sending a negative message at all other than to vent - especially in
this case since you and gdiviney both seem to be novices when it comes to
Cygwin and could easily expose ignorance about the project. It hardly
seems worthwhile to send opionated email only to have people discredit
your opinions when you make a misstatement.

Post by infoterror
Also, the open source community is quite insular, and doesn't accept
advice well from outsiders in all instances.

It's been noted many times that most free software is meritocracy based
and is driven by people who actually do the work. Reading "advice" from
email voices who claim deep knowledge or vast years of experience is
just tedious chore given the fact that it's possible for you to actually
do real work and demonstrate your superior methods. Expecting people to
take advice from a faceless (and in your case anonymous) voice, just on
the voice's say-so, does not, once again, seem very pragmatic to me.
There are too many people with conflicting ideas out there who know that
they are geniuses. You can't listen to all of them.

Post by infoterror
Even when we volunteer, for example, technical writing skills or
project management experience. If it weren't for the somewhat
unrealistic responses I've seen from open sourcers, I probably would be
one.

The Cygwin project would welcome additional or improved documentation.
Please do dazzle us with your technical writing skills.

cgf

[Mike Marchywka]

Couple of comments:
1) Please find my post on cygwin-talk that was inappropriate for this list,
for "real-life" applications of cygwin and programming languages for
non-programmers
( this is far from being a tool confined to "academic" interests).
Even for non-programmers who don't want to learn regex's,
most tasks could be performed with a quick e-mail to a "programmer"
( many open sources would probably answer a question requiring a
one line answer but not write a whole text processing program )
2) I think everyone has spent some learning time cursing at sed-
" why did the [ insert term here ] did it do that?"
3) You could, for comparison, go get the java sdk which is also free
and comes with a compiler- I used to use java before getting realizing
scripting languages are much better a large class of tasks. The java
package is more self contained and better documented ( and java
is a "safer" language with more run-time diagnostics).

I have a lot of sympathy with the sentiment ( personally I find swearing at
code like cheering at a sporting event- quite enjoyable sometimes )
but I have been advocating cygwin ( or actually command line text processing
)
to a larger, less technical audience. Perhaps if enough of these people
come to appreciate the power and COMPARATIVELY short learning
curve, resources ( time or money ) would become available to
produce new tools to make things nicer.

Personally, setup.exe annoys me but it does seem to make cygwin install
"one-stop shopping."


I didn't bother looking at the thread beyond this message but is this
a high school project? I learned programming in junior high, I'm curious
to see how things are evolving.
Thanks.


( note new address as of 10-06)
Mike Marchywka
586 Saint James Walk
Marietta GA 30067-7165r
( NOTE MORE NEWER NUMBER )
404-788-1216 (C)<- leave message
989-348-4796 (P)<- emergency only

Subject: Re: Cygintl-3.dll was not found
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 01:59:33 -0400

Post by infoterror

Post by gdiviney
A one-hour compiler class assignment has become an all-day goose-hunt.
Thanks Cygwin developers! Maybe someday I???ll have the opportunity to
waste an entire day of your lives. If it weren???t for schools, your
aberrant work would have been forgotten long ago.

Agreed.

So you, infoterror, are also a student? That's interesting.
Given the number of people in this mailing list from companies who run
Cygwin, it's hard to see how you could have any basis for your opinion.

Post by infoterror
While I like the idea of free software, and giving things away free, I
think they should be done sensibly and pragmatically. Saving people
time is fine. Writing off all complaints with "well, it's free, what
did you expect?" is the same kind of crass capitalism I see in the
pornography flooding the internet.

Hmm. Now I really understand why your opinion of Cygwin is so low if
you equate giving away software and volunteering time with "capitalism".
Incidentally, your statement that "all complaints" are written off is
provably untrue. Even this resurrected thread shows people who are
willing to help with problems.
What is true about free software is that you, as the user of same, would
be best advised to be deferential and factual if you desire help. It
makes no sense to be insulting. If the software doesn't meet your needs
or doesn't seem to work then outrage is not really, IMO, a pragmatic
response since you could easily alienate the people who could help you.
If you didn't really want help then there doesn't seem to be much point
in sending a negative message at all other than to vent - especially in
this case since you and gdiviney both seem to be novices when it comes to
Cygwin and could easily expose ignorance about the project. It hardly
seems worthwhile to send opionated email only to have people discredit
your opinions when you make a misstatement.

Post by infoterror
Also, the open source community is quite insular, and doesn't accept
advice well from outsiders in all instances.

It's been noted many times that most free software is meritocracy based
and is driven by people who actually do the work. Reading "advice" from
email voices who claim deep knowledge or vast years of experience is
just tedious chore given the fact that it's possible for you to actually
do real work and demonstrate your superior methods. Expecting people to
take advice from a faceless (and in your case anonymous) voice, just on
the voice's say-so, does not, once again, seem very pragmatic to me.
There are too many people with conflicting ideas out there who know that
they are geniuses. You can't listen to all of them.

Post by infoterror
Even when we volunteer, for example, technical writing skills or
project management experience. If it weren't for the somewhat
unrealistic responses I've seen from open sourcers, I probably would be
one.

The Cygwin project would welcome additional or improved documentation.
Please do dazzle us with your technical writing skills.
cgf
--
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/

_________________________________________________________________
Get FREE company branded e-mail accounts and business Web site from
Microsoft Office Live
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/

[infoterror]

Post by Christopher Faylor
So you, infoterror, are also a student? That's interesting.
Given the number of people in this mailing list from companies who run
Cygwin, it's hard to see how you could have any basis for your opinion.
Hmm. Now I really understand why your opinion of Cygwin is so low if
you equate giving away software and volunteering time with "capitalism".

Typical thin intelligence replies. In the first sentence, you made an
assumption written nowhere in the text. (The answer is no, for the record.)

In the second paragraph, you make a weak "ad hominem" argument because you
don't want to accept what your userbase is telling you here.

In the third, you deliberately misinterpret a critique of SOME open source
development for ALL open source development.

In summary, your critical thinking skills are underdeveloped.

I would want to work for a project that rewarded critical thinking skills
instead of bulk machine manipulations, because the latter do not support the
user while the former does.

It's interesting that a project such as Cygwin can't get over "attack the
critic" rhetoric. How... immature.

[Christopher Faylor]

[overly long reply]

Post by Christopher Faylor

Post by gdiviney

Post by gdiviney
A one-hour compiler class assignment has become an all-day goose-hunt.
Thanks Cygwin developers! Maybe someday I???ll have the opportunity to

waste an entire day of your lives. If it weren???t for schools, your

Post by gdiviney
aberrant work would have been forgotten long ago.

Agreed.

So you, infoterror, are also a student? That's interesting.
Given the number of people in this mailing list from companies who run
Cygwin, it's hard to see how you could have any basis for your opinion.
Hmm. Now I really understand why your opinion of Cygwin is so low if
you equate giving away software and volunteering time with "capitalism".

Typical thin intelligence replies. In the first sentence, you made an
assumption written nowhere in the text. (The answer is no, for the
record.)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I had difficulty seeing how you could
subscribe to the notion that schools were the only reason that cygwin
was not forgotten since, if you are not a student, you obviously would
be remembering it and would automatically refute the assertion. So, I
assumed that you must be a student if you agreed.

In the second paragraph, you make a weak "ad hominem" argument because you
don't want to accept what your userbase is telling you here.

My second paragraph was stating that I didn't understand how you could
come to the conclusion that only schools are keeping cygwin alive since
there are clearly many messages from companies on this mailing list.
This does not in any way attack your character or appeal to special
interests. It is a simple statement of fact.

In the third, you deliberately misinterpret a critique of SOME open source
development for ALL open source development.

Post by Christopher Faylor
Hmm. Now I really understand why your opinion of Cygwin is so low if
you equate giving away software and volunteering time with
"capitalism".

I didn't mention "open source" at all.

Were you referring to something that you didn't quote? Otherwise, I
don't know how to respond to this.

In summary, your critical thinking skills are underdeveloped.

That is entirely possible but merely stating this without providing a
factual rebuttal does not, IMO, prove your point. What did I
specifically say that was wrong?

I would want to work for a project that rewarded critical thinking
skills instead of bulk machine manipulations, because the latter do not
support the user while the former does.

I don't know what you mean by "bulk machine manipulations". Do you mean
people who can write code, generate tar balls, and send out new release
announcements?

It's interesting that a project such as Cygwin can't get over "attack
the critic" rhetoric. How... immature.

I am sorry that you felt attacked by my reply. I tried to deal directly
with what you said.

What kind of changes would you contemplate in Cygwin? You mentioned
that the open source community is quite insular and does not accept
advice. What is your specific advice? I understand that you don't like
setup.exe. Is that the only thing bothering you? If so, what is the
mechanism that you would suggest for effecting a change, given that
everyone who works on the project is a volunteer who only "scratches
their own itch"? How would you motivate developers to change setup.exe?

If more than setup.exe is bothering you, then I would appreciate knowing
specifics there, too.

Finally, my previous response to you intended to make several points:

1) The statement that Cygwin is only around because of schools is easily
proven to be false.

2) When you ask for help, it is best to do so with deference and respect
to the people you are asking *if you want results*.

3) Free software projects are basically run as meritocracies. If you can
do the work, you can contribute. If you just want to offer opinions you
are not likely to cause much to happen.

4) We would welcome your technical writing contributions.

I'm disappointed that you didn't respond to any of those points but,
instead, seemed to take another opportunity to advance a negative tone
which started in your initial message here and was continued (a couple
of months later) by gdiviney. I'm telling you again, that I don't think
that this kind of communication style is productive. When you accuse
people of "thin intelligence" and say that they are "incapable of
critical thinking", you seem to be intending to provoke an emotional
response. I can't see any other reason for making these types of
observations.

For your words to have any credibility, you have *got* to provide
concrete examples and concrete suggestions. Merely making
generalizations about open source is not going to cut it. We'd have to
be truly out-of-touch with reality if we just accepted anything you said
because you, posting from an anonymous infoterror account, said it.
This is, again, a simple statement of fact. It is not an attack. For
all I know, you're Marvin Minsky but, so far, all we know is that you're
a guy named "infoterror" who likes to use the word "thin intelligence"
and rail about critical thinkers.

Show us more and maybe you'll convert us.

cgf

[infoterror]

Post by Christopher Faylor
My second paragraph was stating that I didn't understand how you could
come to the conclusion that only schools are keeping cygwin alive since
there are clearly many messages from companies on this mailing list.
This does not in any way attack your character or appeal to special
interests. It is a simple statement of fact.

You forget that the users use what tools they have, but if something better
comes along, they replace them. You've been given good advice here by
multiple users, and reasons why, and you've responded to it with
pathological argumentation. I don't know if I can help you, but if you're
willing to set up a debate with a mediator, I'll demonstrate logic to you.

The world doesn't care about your drama. It cares about tools. I know many
people in the Open Source movement, like many in closed source development,
care about providing quality tools to their users (and many closed sourcers
give 'em away free, like EditPadLite and PuTTy). I don't know why you're
fighting the messenger instead of paying attention to the message, and I can
only assume the "the problem is between the screen and the chair."

I am a professional, and a logician, and if I seem terse, it's that I don't
take kindly to having my time wasted by people who do not understand logical
argument and are not emotionally stable enough to accept logic.

Best,

[Corinna Vinschen]

[...]

Oh boy, stop it. It's a nice try of trolling but eventually it's
getting tiresome.


Corinna

[Christopher Faylor]

Post by infoterror

Post by Christopher Faylor
My second paragraph was stating that I didn't understand how you could
come to the conclusion that only schools are keeping cygwin alive since
there are clearly many messages from companies on this mailing list.
This does not in any way attack your character or appeal to special
interests. It is a simple statement of fact.

You forget that the users use what tools they have, but if something
better comes along, they replace them. You've been given good advice
here by multiple users, and reasons why, and you've responded to it
with pathological argumentation. I don't know if I can help you, but
if you're willing to set up a debate with a mediator, I'll demonstrate
logic to you.
The world doesn't care about your drama. It cares about tools. I know
many people in the Open Source movement, like many in closed source
development, care about providing quality tools to their users (and
many closed sourcers give 'em away free, like EditPadLite and PuTTy).
I don't know why you're fighting the messenger instead of paying
attention to the message, and I can only assume the "the problem is
between the screen and the chair."
I am a professional, and a logician, and if I seem terse, it's that I
don't take kindly to having my time wasted by people who do not
understand logical argument and are not emotionally stable enough to
accept logic.
Best,

Dude, deluded much?

Since you haven't been able to come up with any cygwin-specific
information (or any information really), I'm declaring this topic over.
If you want to continue in this vein, use cygwin-talk. This is your
only warning.

cgf

[Mike Marchywka]

Post by infoterror
development, care about providing quality tools to their users (and

I've been "selling" cygwin to a not-so-technical crowd for that reason.
My wireless LAN card came with a utility ( that I paid for ) that gives me
cute
little pictures showing green or red wires between little pictures for my
computer, switch, and cable modem. I can use task manager to watch it
tie up GDI objects- even when iconified. I have to kill it or have all my
windows
get screwed up every few hours.

The biggest problem with quality tools is graphics- either due to the design
of the UI and menu schemes or the difficulties inherent in making them work.

Cygwin is a perfect way to get people to understand the power of the command
line utility without giving up Windoze or having them deal with DOS scripts.

I'd be more than happy to write a regex to help someone extract a field from
a complicated document but I sure wouldn't sit down and write a windoze app
for that or even type 50 lines explaining how to navigate through a menu
hierarchy.

Subject: Re: Cygintl-3.dll was not found
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 17:13:17 -0500

Post by infoterror

Post by Christopher Faylor
My second paragraph was stating that I didn't understand how you could
come to the conclusion that only schools are keeping cygwin alive since
there are clearly many messages from companies on this mailing list.
This does not in any way attack your character or appeal to special
interests. It is a simple statement of fact.

You forget that the users use what tools they have, but if something
better comes along, they replace them. You've been given good advice
here by multiple users, and reasons why, and you've responded to it
with pathological argumentation. I don't know if I can help you, but
if you're willing to set up a debate with a mediator, I'll demonstrate
logic to you.
The world doesn't care about your drama. It cares about tools. I know
many people in the Open Source movement, like many in closed source
development, care about providing quality tools to their users (and
many closed sourcers give 'em away free, like EditPadLite and PuTTy).
I don't know why you're fighting the messenger instead of paying
attention to the message, and I can only assume the "the problem is
between the screen and the chair."
I am a professional, and a logician, and if I seem terse, it's that I
don't take kindly to having my time wasted by people who do not
understand logical argument and are not emotionally stable enough to
accept logic.
Best,

Dude, deluded much?
Since you haven't been able to come up with any cygwin-specific
information (or any information really), I'm declaring this topic over.
If you want to continue in this vein, use cygwin-talk. This is your
only warning.
cgf
--
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/

_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us

[infoterror]

Post by Christopher Faylor
Since you haven't been able to come up with any cygwin-specific
information (or any information really), I'm declaring this topic over.
If you want to continue in this vein, use cygwin-talk. This is your
only warning.

I'm sorry you're having a tantrum. For those of us with a background in
logical argument, what's happened here is obvious and typical. We're
speaking different languages, and you've made no effort to understand what
I'm saying because you take it as a personal insult that someone dare
suggest your project could use some additions. This is all-too typical in
IT. Good luck in your quest for maturity and logical coherence.

[Christopher Faylor]

Post by Christopher Faylor
Since you haven't been able to come up with any cygwin-specific
information (or any information really), I'm declaring this topic over.
If you want to continue in this vein, use cygwin-talk. This is your
only warning.

I'm sorry you're having a tantrum. For those of us with a background
in logical argument, what's happened here is obvious and typical.
We're speaking different languages, and you've made no effort to
understand what I'm saying because you take it as a personal insult
that someone dare suggest your project could use some additions. This
is all-too typical in IT. Good luck in your quest for maturity and
logical coherence.

Bye, bye Mr. Anonymous Coward.

cgf

[neoclassical]

Post by Christopher Faylor
Bye, bye Mr. Anonymous Coward.

Abusing your authority by re-classifying my email address as "spam" does not
win an argument. In fact, it speaks poorly of your character.

[Christopher Faylor]

Post by neoclassical

Post by Christopher Faylor
Bye, bye Mr. Anonymous Coward.

Abusing your authority by re-classifying my email address as "spam"
does not win an argument. In fact, it speaks poorly of your character.

And I should care about your opinion of my character and my authority
from anonymous cowards because...?

cgf

[Christopher Faylor]

Post by Christopher Faylor

Post by neoclassical

Post by Christopher Faylor
Bye, bye Mr. Anonymous Coward.

Abusing your authority by re-classifying my email address as "spam"
does not win an argument. In fact, it speaks poorly of your character.

And I should care about your opinion of my character and my authority
from anonymous cowards because...?

I'm truly sorry. I should have redirected this, again, to cygwin-talk
rather than continue discussions about my character or my other obvious
personal failings in the cygwin list where this kind of thing is really
off-topic.

If you must respond, please do so in that forum. This is your one
warning, infoterrie..., er, neoclassical.

cgf

[Tevfik Karagülle]

I don't know how to switch from digest mode to normal mode.
That's why I think this mail is a little bit out-of-sync. Sorry about that.

After feedback from cgf, I have scanned setup.ini for packages and
their dependencies. 54 of 797 packages are qualified for Base either
directly or indirectly:

_update-info-dir
alternatives
ash
base-files
base-passwd
bash
bzip2
coreutils
crypt
cygutils
cygwin
cygwin-doc
diffutils
editrights
findutils
gawk
gdbm
grep
groff
gzip
less
libbz2_1
libcharset1
libgdbm
libgdbm-devel
libgdbm3
libgdbm4
libiconv
libiconv2
libintl
libintl1
libintl2
libintl3
libncurses5
libncurses6
libncurses7
libncurses8
libpcre0
libpopt0
libreadline4
libreadline5
libreadline6
login
man
mktemp
ncurses
run
sed
tar
termcap
terminfo
texinfo
which
zlib

I will develop an NSIS package which creates registry
Mount points, untar packages above and run the
Postinstall script. Any suggestions including naming
are welcome.

Rgrds Tev

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 9:43 PM
Subject: RE: Setup.exe requirements [was RE: Cygintl-3.dll
was not found]
Thanks.
According to the setup.exe default package information,
---------------------------
Alternatives ash base-files base-passwd bash coreutils cygwin
cygwin-doc diffutils editrights findutils gawk gdbm Grep gzip
libgdbm lidgdbm-devel libgdbm3 libgdbm4
libncurses5 libncurses6 libncurses7 libncurses8 libreadline4
Libreadline5 libreadline6 login man ncurses run sed Tar
termcap terminfo which zlib cygwin-doc man gawk Termcap zlib
---------------------------
In the first phase, I can think of producing a monolithic
installer for the core environment performing tasks
- Create basic cygwin registry mountpoints
- untar packages
- run the postinstall script
- Create start menu items and shortcuts (optional)
- maintain setub.db (how?)
Would that be a valid cygwin installation ?
Second phase could be to introduce upgrade functionality.
Rgrds Tev

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 6:17 PM
To: Dave Korn
Subject: Re: Setup.exe requirements [was RE: Cygintl-3.dll was not
found]

Post by Dave Korn

On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 10:00:19AM +0200, Tevfik

Post by Tevfik Karagülle

Post by Christopher Faylor
Standards such as? A pointer to a free installer which uses
Windows standards and which will handle Cygwin's

needs would be

Post by Dave Korn

Post by Tevfik Karagülle

Post by Christopher Faylor
useful, e.g., would NSIS meet your needs? We've

discussed using NSIS in the past.

Post by Dave Korn

Post by Tevfik Karagülle
Can anyone give me a qualified reference about the

requirements of

Post by Dave Korn

Post by Tevfik Karagülle
a core cygwin environment ? I would like to try to

develop an NSIS

Post by Dave Korn

Post by Tevfik Karagülle
installer for it.

Huh? setup.exe installs a "core cygwin environment" right now.
What kind of reference would you be expecting other than the
operation of the current installer?
cgf

I imagine Tevfik just wants us to enumerate the things it
1) Allow package selection and handle dependencies, based on
setup.ini information and the content of the local package store.
2) Create basic cygwin registry mountpoints if they don't

already exist.

Post by Dave Korn
3) Untar selected package tarballs in cygwin root directory when
installing, delete previously installed files when uninstalling.
4) Run preuninstall and postinstall scripts as requested.
5) Maintain suitable setup.db information for cygcheck to

continue working.

Post by Dave Korn
6) Optionally create desktop / start menu shortcuts.
Does that cover all the essentials?

7) Run preremove scripts on uninstalls.
8) Allow installing package sources.
Igor
--
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ Igor Peshansky, Ph.D.
(name changed!)
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' old name: Igor

Pechtchanski

'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
"Las! je suis sot... -Mais non, tu ne l'es pas, puisque tu

t'en rends

compte."
"But no -- you are no fool; you call yourself a fool, there's proof
enough in that!" -- Rostand, "Cyrano de Bergerac"

[Christopher Faylor]

Post by Tevfik Karagülle
I don't know how to switch from digest mode to normal mode.
That's why I think this mail is a little bit out-of-sync. Sorry about that.
After feedback from cgf, I have scanned setup.ini for packages and
their dependencies. 54 of 797 packages are qualified for Base either
...
I will develop an NSIS package which creates registry Mount points,
untar packages above and run the Postinstall script. Any suggestions
including naming are welcome.

I'm not sure if you got my point or not but if you don't develop an
installer which deals with categories and dependencies, then I don't see
how it could be considered a replacement for setup.exe. If you do this,
then you don't need to list all of the packages in "Base". You just
need to know that there is a "Base" and deal with that.

cgf

[infoterror]

Post by Christopher Faylor
I'm not sure if you got my point or not but if you don't develop an
installer which deals with categories and dependencies, then I don't see
how it could be considered a replacement for setup.exe. If you do this,
then you don't need to list all of the packages in "Base". You just
need to know that there is a "Base" and deal with that.

You've been carrying this axe to grind for a long time. Why not accept that
you're dealing with a different paradigm and get off your pretentious high
horse?

FYI

[Reini Urban]

Post by Tevfik Karagülle
After feedback from cgf, I have scanned setup.ini for packages and
their dependencies. 54 of 797 packages are qualified for Base either

...

Post by Tevfik Karagülle
I will develop an NSIS package which creates registry
Mount points, untar packages above and run the
Postinstall script. Any suggestions including naming
are welcome.

Already done for NSIS. See those three people at least:

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cygwin&m=111351786214881&w=2
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cygwin&m=113525279200090&w=2
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cygwin&m=100075284818001&w=2
=> http://cygwin-lite.sourceforge.net/

But be sure to provide the src packages also to your users. e.g. with an
optional checkbox.

All these attempts will most likely fail if a proper cygwin setup is
already installed. It's very easy detect by the mount points in the
registry. So please be sure to play nicely with an already existing
cygwin, and copy only the necessary files to the proper places then. We
hate duplicate cygwin1.dll's.

[Dave Korn]

Post by Reini Urban

Post by Tevfik Karagülle
After feedback from cgf, I have scanned setup.ini for packages and
their dependencies. 54 of 797 packages are qualified for Base either

...

Post by Tevfik Karagülle
I will develop an NSIS package which creates registry
Mount points, untar packages above and run the
Postinstall script. Any suggestions including naming
are welcome.

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cygwin&m=111351786214881&w=2
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cygwin&m=113525279200090&w=2
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cygwin&m=100075284818001&w=2
=> http://cygwin-lite.sourceforge.net/

That's a cunning and clever plan, but with just two slight problems:

1) The website says: " Update: As of version 1-3-3a, Cygwin-Lite is no longer
being updated with newer versions of the Cygwin dll or GNU tools. "

and

2) The website says: " Update: As of version 1-3-3a, Cygwin-Lite is no longer
being updated with newer versions of the Cygwin dll or GNU tools. "


Now, I know that technically, that's only one problem, but I thought it was
such a big one it was worth mentioning twice!


cheers,
DaveK

[Larry Hall (Cygwin)]

Post by Dave Korn

Post by Reini Urban

Post by Tevfik Karagülle
After feedback from cgf, I have scanned setup.ini for packages and
their dependencies. 54 of 797 packages are qualified for Base either

...

Post by Tevfik Karagülle
I will develop an NSIS package which creates registry
Mount points, untar packages above and run the
Postinstall script. Any suggestions including naming
are welcome.

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cygwin&m=111351786214881&w=2
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cygwin&m=113525279200090&w=2
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cygwin&m=100075284818001&w=2
=> http://cygwin-lite.sourceforge.net/

1) The website says: " Update: As of version 1-3-3a, Cygwin-Lite is no longer
being updated with newer versions of the Cygwin dll or GNU tools. "
and
2) The website says: " Update: As of version 1-3-3a, Cygwin-Lite is no longer
being updated with newer versions of the Cygwin dll or GNU tools. "
Now, I know that technically, that's only one problem, but I thought it was
such a big one it was worth mentioning twice!

It's also worth noting that the goal here was a subset of Cygwin functionality
packaged as a monolithic (no matter how small) install. While the former is a
potential supplement to "setup.exe", the latter is a step backward in terms of
installation flexibility. It seems to me that any "setup.exe" replacement
cannot be monolithic installer or provide only a subset of the available
packages.

[Dave Korn]

Post by Larry Hall (Cygwin)
It's also worth noting that the goal here was a subset of Cygwin
functionality packaged as a monolithic (no matter how small) install.
While the former is a potential supplement to "setup.exe", the latter is a
step backward in terms of installation flexibility. It seems to me that
any "setup.exe" replacement cannot be monolithic installer or provide only
a subset of the available packages.

Well, just because it's a monolithic installer wouldn't stop it from reading
setup.ini and downloading the latest versions of the base packages 'behind the
scenes'.

Perhaps the easiest solution would be a customized version of setup.exe that
doesn't present the GUI and runs through the sequences of operations with
everything on default settings.



cheers,
DaveK

[Tevfik Karagülle]

Hi,

My intention is to develop an alternative to Cygwin Setup. That means it
must support all dependencies, setup.ini and package repositories around.

I've thought that we can have a monolithic installer which installs a basic
environment out-of-the-box. It is very convenient for most of the users. I
have already developed an experimental one with Cygwin Base (54 packages,
about 13 MB) as content. When it is ready for review, it will have a 'Cygwin
Update' function, which can be used to update existing components with
dependency check. If you want to add/remove software to/from your Cygwin
installation, then there will be a kind of 'Cygwin Boost' function, where
you can pick packages you want to install or remove.

Framework I use to develop a monolithic installer is not limited by only
'Base'. It is customizable. That means you can have different startpoints to
your cygwin installation. One variant can only have 'Cygwin barebone' to
meet needs of a specific program (rsync for example?), while the other one
can be a full-featured OpenSSH server. Cygwin Update/Boost function will be
common to all those variants of monolithic installers.

Any comments ?

Rgrds Tev

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 5:00 PM
Subject: RE: Setup.exe requirements [was RE: Cygintl-3.dll
was not found]

Post by Larry Hall (Cygwin)
It's also worth noting that the goal here was a subset of Cygwin
functionality packaged as a monolithic (no matter how

small) install.

Post by Larry Hall (Cygwin)
While the former is a potential supplement to "setup.exe",

the latter

Post by Larry Hall (Cygwin)
is a step backward in terms of installation flexibility.

It seems to

Post by Larry Hall (Cygwin)
me that any "setup.exe" replacement cannot be monolithic

installer or

Post by Larry Hall (Cygwin)
provide only a subset of the available packages.

Well, just because it's a monolithic installer wouldn't
stop it from reading setup.ini and downloading the latest
versions of the base packages 'behind the scenes'.
Perhaps the easiest solution would be a customized version
of setup.exe that doesn't present the GUI and runs through
the sequences of operations with everything on default settings.
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

[Larry Hall (Cygwin)]

<http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#TOFU>. Reformatted.

Post by Tevfik Karagülle

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Korn [mailto:dave.kornat artimi dot com]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

<http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#PCYMTNQREAIYR>. Thanks.

Post by Tevfik Karagülle

Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 5:00 PM
Subject: RE: Setup.exe requirements [was RE: Cygintl-3.dll
was not found]

Post by Larry Hall (Cygwin)
It's also worth noting that the goal here was a subset of Cygwin
functionality packaged as a monolithic (no matter how

small) install.

Post by Larry Hall (Cygwin)
While the former is a potential supplement to "setup.exe",

the latter

Post by Larry Hall (Cygwin)
is a step backward in terms of installation flexibility.

It seems to

Post by Larry Hall (Cygwin)
me that any "setup.exe" replacement cannot be monolithic

installer or

Post by Larry Hall (Cygwin)
provide only a subset of the available packages.

Well, just because it's a monolithic installer wouldn't
stop it from reading setup.ini and downloading the latest
versions of the base packages 'behind the scenes'.
Perhaps the easiest solution would be a customized version
of setup.exe that doesn't present the GUI and runs through
the sequences of operations with everything on default settings.

Hi,
My intention is to develop an alternative to Cygwin Setup. That means it
must support all dependencies, setup.ini and package repositories around.
I've thought that we can have a monolithic installer which installs a basic
environment out-of-the-box. It is very convenient for most of the users. I
have already developed an experimental one with Cygwin Base (54 packages,
about 13 MB) as content. When it is ready for review, it will have a 'Cygwin
Update' function, which can be used to update existing components with
dependency check. If you want to add/remove software to/from your Cygwin
installation, then there will be a kind of 'Cygwin Boost' function, where
you can pick packages you want to install or remove.
Framework I use to develop a monolithic installer is not limited by only
'Base'. It is customizable. That means you can have different startpoints to
your cygwin installation. One variant can only have 'Cygwin barebone' to
meet needs of a specific program (rsync for example?), while the other one
can be a full-featured OpenSSH server. Cygwin Update/Boost function will be
common to all those variants of monolithic installers.
Any comments ?

I guess I'm wondering why have an initial download of even the 13 MB if
those packages could be out-of-date. One of the advantages of "setup.exe"
is that it is just a small program (<500K) that can be downloaded quickly
and then current packages can be installed from there. I don't think we
want to loose the ability to install current packages no matter when they
choose (or chose) to download the installer. Even with the option to
update, it still seems like we're adding an unnecessary step and download
burden. Overall, the rest sounds great!

[Christopher Faylor]

My intention is to develop an alternative to Cygwin Setup. That means
it must support all dependencies, setup.ini and package repositories
around.
I've thought that we can have a monolithic installer which installs a
basic environment out-of-the-box. It is very convenient for most of
the users.

This would never be accepted as a setup.exe replacement.

As a meta issue, I would like it very much if arguments like "this will
benefit most...users" or any other type of generic argument which seems
to attempt to speak decisively about some set of people (e.g.,
"corporate types") could be avoided. You don't know what most of the
users want so please don't even go there.

I have already developed an experimental one with Cygwin Base (54
packages, about 13 MB) as content. When it is ready for review, it
will have a 'Cygwin Update' function, which can be used to update
existing components with dependency check. If you want to add/remove
software to/from your Cygwin installation, then there will be a kind of
'Cygwin Boost' function, where you can pick packages you want to
install or remove.
Framework I use to develop a monolithic installer is not limited by
only 'Base'. It is customizable. That means you can have different
startpoints to your cygwin installation. One variant can only have
'Cygwin barebone' to meet needs of a specific program (rsync for
example?), while the other one can be a full-featured OpenSSH server.
Cygwin Update/Boost function will be common to all those variants of
monolithic installers.
Any comments ?

As is mentioned elsewhere, having to rebuild an executable with static
content is a way to guarantee out-of-date installation on a customer's
system. We do not want that. This is not open to debate. Please don't
try to push this type of plan.

This is why I sent two different messages on the subject about how the
Base category works. I guess I just wasn't clear enough.

cgf