Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Message-ID: <045601c2d491$ca607260$ab7886d9@webdev>
Reply-To: "Elfyn McBratney" <cygwin@cygwin.com>
From: "Elfyn McBratney" <elfyn-cygwin@exposure.org.uk>
To: "cygwin" <cygwin@cygwin.com>
References: <20030214222838.GA14308@redhat.com> <20030215000815.45437.qmail@web21403.mail.yahoo.com> <20030215003947.GC17991@redhat.com> <040c01c2d48f$a643fac0$ab7886d9@webdev> <20030215012253.GA23966@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 01:30:09 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 01:14:54AM -0000, Elfyn McBratney wrote:
> >> Actually, just creating a file named 'con' would probably be easier.
> >
> >Isn't 'con' a reserved name in windows?
>
> That's kinda the whole point.

Right...I get it now.

> >I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be able to extract it from the tar
> >archive.
>
> It works just as I would expect, and just like /dev/tty works, which
> is no surprise.  The drawback is that it won't do anything if you're
> running from rxvt or X-Windows, though.

If there's a chance that this would still go un-noticed then can we go with
the package-version.cyg/car packaging scheme? Most user's IMO would just
think that we've started our own rpm thing and would be "forced" to use
setup.exe as they would have done usually or not. That's what it's there for
afterall.

> cgf


Regards,

Elfyn McBratney
elfyn@exposure.org.uk
www.exposure.org.uk


--
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/