Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 23:49:50 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: setup revisit
Message-ID: <20010323234950.A20785@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References: <200103232258 DOT RAA03576 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <00af01c0b3f0$e751e200$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <200103232349 DOT SAA03971 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <021801c0b3fb$97ff2d60$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <20010323204621 DOT B17066 AT redhat DOT com> <02ec01c0b406$6e3822b0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <20010323210835 DOT F17066 AT redhat DOT com> <031101c0b411$3f9cd3a0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <20010323222520 DOT A18513 AT redhat DOT com> <000d01c0b41c$ca137290$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i
In-Reply-To: <000d01c0b41c$ca137290$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>; from robert.collins@itdomain.com.au on Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 03:42:08PM +1100

On Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 03:42:08PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
>To: <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
>Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2001 2:25 PM
>Subject: Re: setup revisit
>
>
>> On Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 02:19:32PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>> >
>> >Oh. That wouldn't have affected what I was suggesting (the current
>> >cygwin1.dll would be used unless an update was present - in which
>case
>> >it comes back to the current setup's behaviour.).
>>
>> And if the current cygwin1.dll is B20?  Do you want to rely on that?
>> Or if it is a buggy snapshot?
>
>"unless an update was present". Then it upgrades cygwin1.dll first - and
>if it can't either gives the current cygwin1.dll upgrade failure "can't
>open", or [insert desired message/action].

So you'd have a side channel, special case method for updating the
cygwin DLL which didn't rely on the cygwin DLL?  That sounds messy to me.

cgf