Re: Installer names not meaningful enough

[Stephen Paul Carrier <carrier@Berkeley.EDU>]

On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 11:37:41AM -0500, Ian Lambert wrote:
> On December 1, 2016 8:54:57 AM EST, cyg Simple <cygsimple@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >On 12/1/2016 8:25 AM, Vlado wrote:
> >> On 1.12.2016 13:51, Eliot Moss wrote:
> >>> I think that including the version of the setup program could be
> >helpful
> >>> - I tend
> >>> to add it (renaming the file by hand).  However, clearly we've lived
> >>> with things this
> >>> way for a long time ...
> >
> >More than a score years.
> >
> >> 
> >> I disagree.
> >> I have a script to update Cygwin. This script checks for new version
> >of
> >> setup, downloads, verifies signature, etc. Things would become much
> >more
> >> complicated with variable setup file name.
> >> Finally: Why should I care about the exact version number of setup?
> >> Script makes backups of the old setup files like setup.exe.0001,
> >0002,
> >> ..., just for a cause, but never in the past I did have to looking
> >for
> >> the setup with exact version number.
> >> 
> >
> >The only reason would be if you had an older version of the .ini file.
> >When the data prerequisites of the .ini file change there is a new
> >version of setup to handle that.

Right, and the way to learn if this is the case is to run setup.  I learn
that a new version is available by running the old version.

Running setup is also the way to find out what is the version.

I don't mind renaming the file myself, but would really appreciate any
way to know from the cygwin.com front page exactly which version of the
setup-*.exe is on offer.  (The current version of Cygwin DLL is useful,
but not the same thing.)

Stephen Carrier

--
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