Mail Archives: cygwin/2007/02/05/11:25:10
On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 10:06:41AM -0600, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
>>The discussion has been to augment 'setup.exe' in a way as to provide users
>>with feedback about "important" package changes in general. It has come up
>>in the context of the gcc change but would have to apply generally.
>>"Important" would be defined by the maintainer by some mechanism.
>>Presumably, every release of package 'foo' does not trigger the "important"
>>flag. ;-)
>
>Hmm, there might be a catch-22 here. How do we force people to update
>their setup.exe?
Doesn't setup.exe warns if the setup.ini being used has a different
version number?
In any event, we are, of course, going to send out details in
cygwin-announce.
>(What about a change that does not affect setup.exe itself? Maybe a
>package that most things depend on that allows a post-install script to
>display a dialog? Or was that the plan already?)
I suppose that you could add a post-install script but it is too late at
that point. This would force a normal cygwin user into a reinstall frenzy
from which they might not ever recover. It might be better than nothing,
though.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -