From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 59233 invoked by alias); 10 Aug 2015 16:45:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Sender: cygwin-apps-owner@cygwin.com List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 59214 invoked by uid 89); 10 Aug 2015 16:45:15 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: etr-usa.com Received: from etr-usa.com (HELO etr-usa.com) (130.94.180.135) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 16:45:14 +0000 Received: (qmail 91946 invoked by uid 13447); 10 Aug 2015 16:45:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO polypore.west.etr-usa.com) ([73.26.17.49]) (envelope-sender ) by 130.94.180.135 (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 10 Aug 2015 16:45:13 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\)) Subject: Re: setup From: Warren Young In-Reply-To: <87tws7rtb2.fsf@Rainer.invalid> Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 16:45:00 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <950B17ED-5523-40A7-9CF5-CB21434591B9@etr-usa.com> References: <87vbcwfdvw.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <87r3nkfaxn.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <87mvy8f8dz.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <20150803202908.GI17917@calimero.vinschen.de> <87a8u8f4s5.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <871tfidhrm.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <20150805080833.GT17917@calimero.vinschen.de> <87614tn3nm.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <20150806100338.GY17917@calimero.vinschen.de> <87d1z0if40.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <20150807194737.GO12475@calimero.vinschen.de> <874mkawe0c.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <87tws7rtb2.fsf@Rainer.invalid> To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-08/txt/msg00056.txt.bz2 On Aug 10, 2015, at 10:40 AM, Achim Gratz wrote: >=20 > Warren Young writes: >=20 >> In that sense, setup.exe is already bootstrapped: it has everything >> within itself to be able to replace itself. >=20 > I do like the concept of a self-contained executable, but teaching > setup.exe new tricks is likely a larger effort than adding a script here > and there to an install system. Isn=E2=80=99t the whole point of this discussion that setup.exe already kno= ws all the tricks it needs to in order to do what we want here, except for = the =E2=80=9Creplace setup.exe in place=E2=80=9D issue I=E2=80=99ve brought= up separately? Why do you need a self-contained POSIX environment to replace setup.exe?