On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 11:37:41AM -0500, Ian Lambert wrote: > On December 1, 2016 8:54:57 AM EST, cyg Simple <cygsim...@gmail.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.) Stephen Carrier -- 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
