Mail Archives: cygwin/2003/02/14/16:20:52
andrew clarke wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 07:50:48AM +1100, andrew clarke wrote:
>
>
>>Section 2 of the FAQ might also put people off using Setup because it's
>>described as a "work-in-progress" and seemingly a bit of a moving target.
>
>
> Actually, just out of interest, will new Setup programs always be
> backward-compatible (within reason) with packages designed for old
> versions of Setup? The point being, a user should expect to be
> able to install an old .tar.bz2 file from a local directory using
> the latest version of Setup. If not, it should be recommended that
> users keep their old version of setup.exe (and not just overwrite
> it with the newest setup.exe) because the new version may not be able
> to install packages designed for the old version, because it's a
> work-in-progress.
>
> "Expect features and functionality to change."
>
> Unless the FAQ is inaccurate!
There are no plans to change the format of the packages. I can't foresee
a need to ever do this. Don't worry about such things unless you've
been given explicit need to do so. It will give you ulcers! ;-)
> --08:06:16-- http://cygwin.com/setup.exe
>
> 4 Last-Modified: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 00:50:47 GMT
>
> Hmm, nobody is working on it after all?
The new version of setup is being actively worked on. Need proof?
Check out the cygwin-apps email archive. There's been lots of work
since 7/4/2002. It makes for good reading if this is the kind of
information you crave.
--
Larry Hall lhall AT rfk DOT com
RFK Partners, Inc. http://www.rfk.com
838 Washington Street (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -