| delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
"LarryHall(Cygwin)" writes: > Alexander Sotirov wrote: >> Christopher Faylor wrote: >>> It was actually all academic before since: 1) there was nothing wrong >>> with the setup.exe on the mirrors and 2) people shouldn't have been >>> running setup.exe from the mirrors to begin with. >> >> Can you elaborate on why people shouldn't run setup.exe from the mirrors? I >> don't see what is the difference between setup.exe and the other packages. If >> you trust the mirror for all other binaries, why don't you trust it for setup.exe? > > Propagation time delays would be one reason. Since it's easy to grab > 'setup.exe' from the source, there's no sense using one that might be > dated. setup.exe is/was almost two years old. It doesn't seem to change too often. Did you mean setup.ini instead? But setup.ini is coming from the mirror, isn't it? (And this is a serious question: If it comes from the mirror, what happens if a mirror has setup.ini updated, but not all of the packages yet?) Regards -- Markus -- 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/
| webmaster | delorie software privacy |
| Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |