From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 105934 invoked by alias); 1 Dec 2016 16:37:49 -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 105921 invoked by uid 89); 1 Dec 2016 16:37:48 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_40,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=U*cygsimple, sk:cygsimp, cygsimplegmailcom, cygsimple@gmail.com X-HELO: nm21-vm4.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com Received: from nm21-vm4.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (HELO nm21-vm4.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com) (98.138.91.181) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 01 Dec 2016 16:37:47 +0000 Received: from [98.138.101.129] by nm21.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 01 Dec 2016 16:37:45 -0000 Received: from [98.138.226.132] by tm17.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 01 Dec 2016 16:37:45 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp219.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 01 Dec 2016 16:37:45 -0000 X-Yahoo-SMTP: BVtuZFiswBBG504e4DQIhRExpptF4H0nV7E7 Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2016 16:37:00 -0000 From: Ian Lambert To: cygwin@cygwin.com,cyg Simple Subject: Re: Installer names not meaningful enough User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: <5d61771c-00e8-9adb-58ff-8094bf12e550@gmail.com> References: <93ce058d-79e6-a213-1b6f-1ec3438b71c4@gmail.com> <5d61771c-00e8-9adb-58ff-8094bf12e550@gmail.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-12/txt/msg00014.txt.bz2 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. > >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 > >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 "protec= tion" 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 ver= sion 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