X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org From: "Dave Korn" To: References: <461A57FE DOT 7030106 AT veritech DOT com> <461A5F85 DOT 1010709 AT cygwin DOT com> <461A65A4 DOT 2080905 AT veritech DOT com> Subject: RE: Setup.exe version @ cygwin.com Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 17:31:03 +0100 Message-ID: <000201c77ac4$77287fb0$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <461A65A4.2080905@veritech.com> Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: 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 On 09 April 2007 17:11, LDR wrote: > Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote: >> LDR wrote: >>> Since there seems to be "some traffic" on which version of setup.exe is >>> causing (or not) which problems, might it not be a good idea to include >>> the version number of setup.exe with the link to the binary on the next >>> version of setup.exe? >> >> This has been discussed before. IMO, I don't think putting the version >> anywhere other than the first page of the app is going to help much. If >> someone can't find the version on the first page, they are likely to have >> problems finding it in the path or executable name. It is a potential >> area for a synchronization problem, which would cause more confusion. >> > At the web site: Cygwin.com! That sentence no verb! Which makes it incoherent as any kind of a reply to the paragraph above. Perhaps you should try and explain your ideas more fully. cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today.... -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/