X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:subject:references:to:reply-to:from:message-id
	:date:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=M5V/LwPA2DKC1PDP
	2Q3nkTVZg/EAd4sSyp+kcCALaBFW1NEsmYQ8dj7c82QUcQc2KxyRFCAUioKLfz2v
	EKgTxmkj4l9Uw3+UInV9ejfskD1pGS5HH+qb1OihkYnKh4W1F9cN22gDzeD++fit
	laywBKqWsNT4aQi8+R+CCRGJKuk=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:subject:references:to:reply-to:from:message-id
	:date:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=zs8H3P6WiD2//km17UkVwE
	0gGaI=; b=dsQ0dxXbXjs0StcnIbfjR36QtfuRC/CXlwLwQj679gQ6lA0uh62I6W
	CeTZZk6UClVaJSaGqJfUv7GqLJqPETDRoFq9PLlnAImUGy5wsvmmBQU5GWXRrEPV
	kkluhfa5IuHYBi93DdGsCjquREajfl9sgSWyYROomxKjxC80QvXAg=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=calgary, Hx-spam-relays-external:shaw.ca, H*r:shaw.ca, HX-HELO:sk:smtp-ou
X-HELO: smtp-out-no.shaw.ca
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=JLBLi4Cb c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=WqCeCkldcEjBO3QZneQsCg==:117 a=WqCeCkldcEjBO3QZneQsCg==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=w_pzkKWiAAAA:8 a=rFSrpKcQU-gqC0k_aaAA:9 a=nc9EFkV3Rvxlbotu:21 a=sSssSgQmP9osgEwS:21 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=6kGIvZw6iX1k4Y-7sg4_:22 a=sRI3_1zDfAgwuvI8zelB:22
Subject: Re: Installer names not meaningful enough
References: <CAG-pUxkQ_iniFA0r9i2zkT1uFMEvCei0wc9rd45RBYj2uBnVhA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <d7f8f9e5-e77d-8dde-8882-15084904cbe0 AT mitel DOT com> <ba495ad3-5e70-0edf-7958-24644e905963 AT cs DOT umass DOT edu> <93ce058d-79e6-a213-1b6f-1ec3438b71c4 AT gmail DOT com> <5d61771c-00e8-9adb-58ff-8094bf12e550 AT gmail DOT com> <FC2C0B09-B862-4061-A2AC-598423D0CA05 AT yahoo DOT com> <20161205173630 DOT GA1749 AT fedora DOT wp DOT comcast DOT net>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Reply-To: Brian DOT Inglis AT SystematicSw DOT ab DOT ca
From: Brian Inglis <Brian DOT Inglis AT SystematicSw DOT ab DOT ca>
Message-ID: <9c407e66-0775-a183-c168-6e7fd4e0e741@SystematicSw.ab.ca>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 12:05:43 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20161205173630.GA1749@fedora.wp.comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfDa2zGTQ1Inw8/w3LQNFuTKjfbAUW7+g9mynrgwQMoyKus1WFEr+CtMriduJR9+7wYRAVWssBtTQEQZYBerSRill9HizYXaFWXzS3HJgLX1GufnnAXDg TKBLtjFxmPeUw91QxyTlJWOzhJy2Ct7goVUUWfqY09kMjVWfxNpMOE6oBNFn7ryR9wvjLKeuFmBpsQ==
X-IsSubscribed: yes

On 2016-12-05 10:36, Stephen Paul Carrier wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 11:37:41AM -0500, Ian Lambert wrote:
>> On December 1, 2016 8:54:57 AM EST, cyg Simple <cygsimple AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/1/2016 8:25 AM, Vlado wrote:
>>>> On 1.12.2016 13:51, Eliot Moss wrote:
>>>>> I think that including the version of the setup program could be
>>> helpful
>>>>> - I tend
>>>>> to add it (renaming the file by hand).  However, clearly we've lived
>>>>> with things this
>>>>> way for a long time ...
>>>
>>> More than a score years.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I disagree.
>>>> I have a script to update Cygwin. This script checks for new version
>>> of
>>>> setup, downloads, verifies signature, etc. Things would become much
>>> more
>>>> complicated with variable setup file name.
>>>> Finally: Why should I care about the exact version number of setup?
>>>> Script makes backups of the old setup files like setup.exe.0001,
>>> 0002,
>>>> ..., just for a cause, but never in the past I did have to looking
>>> for
>>>> the setup with exact version number.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The only reason would be if you had an older version of the .ini file.
>>> When the data prerequisites of the .ini file change there is a new
>>> version of setup to handle that.
> 
> Right, and the way to learn if this is the case is to run setup.  I learn
> that a new version is available by running the old version.
> 
> Running setup is also the way to find out what is the version.
> 
> I don't mind renaming the file myself, but would really appreciate any
> way to know from the cygwin.com front page exactly which version of the
> setup-*.exe is on offer.  (The current version of Cygwin DLL is useful,
> but not the same thing.)

You can get the Setup version by installing upx and running: 

cp -fp $DIR/setup-x86*.exe /tmp/setup	&& \
upx -dqqq /tmp/setup			&& \
egrep -ao '%%%\ssetup-version\s[.0-9]+' /tmp/setup | \
	sed 's/%%%\ssetup-version\s//'	&& \
rm -f /tmp/setup

-- 
Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple