From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 35671 invoked by alias); 5 Dec 2016 17:36:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 35662 invoked by uid 89); 5 Dec 2016 17:36:50 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=moss, carrier, H*F:D*EDU, offer X-HELO: elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net Received: from elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net (HELO elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net) (209.86.89.70) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 05 Dec 2016 17:36:40 +0000 Received: from [173.164.243.238] (helo=fedora.localdomain) by elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1cDxBn-0007dO-BK for cygwin@cygwin.com; Mon, 05 Dec 2016 12:36:31 -0500 Received: by fedora.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 510) id B2DA0409F6; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 09:36:30 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2016 17:36:00 -0000 From: Stephen Paul Carrier To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Installer names not meaningful enough Message-ID: <20161205173630.GA1749@fedora.wp.comcast.net> References: <93ce058d-79e6-a213-1b6f-1ec3438b71c4@gmail.com> <5d61771c-00e8-9adb-58ff-8094bf12e550@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-ELNK-Trace: ac59ebca7c9aed3bd4c20f6b8d69d888b92c5f0aecc81b51108e9432ddde69b8368994e8f29f8741350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-12/txt/msg00033.txt.bz2 On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 11:37:41AM -0500, Ian Lambert wrote: > On December 1, 2016 8:54:57 AM EST, cyg Simple 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