Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 18:01:34 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24 Message-ID: <20020419220134.GA29222@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <20020419174104 DOT GH22290 AT fairlite DOT demon DOT co DOT uk> <20020419193302 DOT GI22290 AT fairlite DOT demon DOT co DOT uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020419193302.GI22290@fairlite.demon.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 08:33:02PM +0100, Alan Hourihane wrote: >On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 11:22:08AM -0700, Michael A Chase wrote: >> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 18:41:04 +0100 Alan Hourihane wrote: >>I think this is because you haven't installed the packages yet. I >>think setup.exe gets the current version information from the installed >>package not the download directory. > >This isn't the way it used to work, and shouldn't in my opinion. I think you're right and I agree. >setup.exe should know what it's downloaded and not installed. Yep. I thought I added code to do that in the previous version but it's been so long that I'm not sure. And, (bwahaha) I don't have time to look into this myself right now. However, if Robert indicates that this is not the desired behavior then maybe someone else (*cough*, Michael, *cough*) might have time to look into this? cgf -- 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/