Re: Installer names not meaningful enough

[cyg Simple <cygsimple@gmail.com>]

On 12/14/2016 4:17 PM, Erik Soderquist wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 6:28 AM, Vlado <v.99cygwin@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Erik (and others),
>>
>> don't worry about Setup version, please.
>>
>> Use this script:
>> https://gist.github.com/Vlado-99/1d59bf05b70481377ff90bb53e13bb2d
>>
>> - Setup is downloaded only if gpg signature changes (only very small .sig
>> file is re-downloaded every time)
> 
> 
> While work arounds are great and appreciated, they still don't address
> the original question of why the version of the setup executable isn't
> part of the filename like it is in most of the *nix packages and
> installers (or at least most of the ones I have been exposed to).
> 

And if we were purely *nix your argument might hold merit but this setup
executable provides a Windows OS based install of a Windows based
application set known as Cygwin.

The name of the executable has never been a problem; why are you trying
to create one?  There are just as many that would keep it simple and
leave the name as is.

-- 
cyg Simple

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple