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 X-Authentication-Warning: blizzard.dnsalias.org: ozzmosis set sender to mail AT ozzmosis DOT com using -f Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 08:07:22 +1100 From: andrew clarke To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install? Message-ID: <20030214210722.GA63088@ozzmosis.com> References: <20030214182615 DOT GA20996 AT redhat DOT com> <20030214205048 DOT GA62525 AT ozzmosis DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030214205048.GA62525@ozzmosis.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 07:50:48AM +1100, andrew clarke wrote: > Section 2 of the FAQ might also put people off using Setup because it's > described as a "work-in-progress" and seemingly a bit of a moving target. Actually, just out of interest, will new Setup programs always be backward-compatible (within reason) with packages designed for old versions of Setup? The point being, a user should expect to be able to install an old .tar.bz2 file from a local directory using the latest version of Setup. If not, it should be recommended that users keep their old version of setup.exe (and not just overwrite it with the newest setup.exe) because the new version may not be able to install packages designed for the old version, because it's a work-in-progress. "Expect features and functionality to change." Unless the FAQ is inaccurate! --08:06:16-- http://cygwin.com/setup.exe 4 Last-Modified: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 00:50:47 GMT Hmm, nobody is working on it after all? -- 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/