Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@sourceware.cygnus.com
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:06:23 -0400
Message-Id: <200006212006.QAA16648@envy.delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj@delorie.com>
To: pedwards@disaster.jaj.com
CC: cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com
In-reply-to: <200006211959.PAA05595@disaster.jaj.com> (message from Phil
	Edwards on Wed, 21 Jun 2000 15:59:24 -0400)
Subject: Re: setup vs setup 1.48, and the cygwin.bat file
References:  <200006211959.PAA05595@disaster.jaj.com>


> 1)  When I went to retrieve "the latest version" of setup.exe, I saw
>     that the current setup.exe has a version of 1.45.something, but has a
>     newer timestamp than setup-1.48.exe.  I tried searching the mailing list
>     archives for mentions of setup-1.48.exe to see what the story was, but
>     the search engine ignored the numbers.  So, which one should we be using?

1.48 is experimental.  It has lots of new goodies, but is missing a
few key routines Chris added to his version.  So, try 1.48 and see if
it works (and let us know!), and if it doesn't, use setup.exe instead.

> 2)  Running setup to get /any/ packages always rewrites the cygwin.bat file.
>     Unfortunately, I have to edit that file in order to make cygwin
>     useful[0].  I've been thinking[1] of patching setup to only write
>     the file under certain conditions, but that raises the question:
>     when does that file need to be recreated, and when can we skip it?
>     (I am not a cygwin expert.)

Why not just rename the file *you* use, and ignore the one setup
creates?

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com