> On Fri, 2003-06-13 at 15:20, Hal E. Fulton wrote:
> Seriously, I like raa-install, but I would
> like to see Windows compatibility addressed.
> 
> Windows compatibility is pretty good, I think - though I haven't tested
> it much - Patrick May did a bunch testing and fixes for  Windows.

Was that recently? I tried it a few months ago 
on win98 and had some problems.
 
> The main problem is stuff that needs a C compiler, but we need a binary
> packaging system to work around that.

What does it do now in that case? 

You could perhaps search for gcc.exe (perhaps only 
in the PATH) and use that if it's available. Other 
than that, I have no real ideas for standardizing that.
 
> > I'd also like to see raa-install with a little
> > less screen clutter (see the earlier thread
> > about dots and carriage returns).
> 
> What was the consensus? We can implement whatever is required. 

I don't know that there was a consensus. And
since I was the only one who complained, maybe
you should just ignore me. :)

I just thought the dots were intrusive and could be
replaced with (for example) an overwritten line with
a counter. And someone (Michael Campbell?) pointed out
that it's dangerous to make assumptions about the
terminal environment -- e.g., sometimes backspaces and
such are not interpreted correctly. But I think that
restricting it to a simple carriage return is safe
everywhere.

My $0.02,
Hal

--
Hal Fulton
hal9000 / hypermetrics.com