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: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 14:59:49 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install? Message-ID: <20030215195949.GB28395@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <20030215082300 DOT GF5822 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 01:57:23PM -0600, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: >>Isn't it, in the first place the "Cygwin Package Manager"? "cpm"? >>Even the suffix of the archive files could be cpm... > >It's not at all unprecedented for Windows "installers" to be "dual-use" >like Cygwin Setup is. The control panel API even directly supports >such use (eg. change/remove buttons). Change the name to "Cygwin >Package Manager", and people will think you need cygwin already >installed to use it. Let's keep the "Setup" moniker, strive to keep >that end as Windowesqe as makes sense, and let the unavoidable chips >fall where they may. Hear, here. 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/