Re: Installer names not meaningful enough

[Ian Lambert <ian.lambert_42@yahoo.com>]

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.


Another reason to rename from setup to something else is if your PC "protection" won't let you run something named setup, but will run other names. A friend has this issue, and uses a script to download and rename new setups, when "non-setup" says a newer one is available, based on timestamp and version in setup.ini (?).

So, I'd like it to have a different, constant name too, but no biggie as is.



--
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