This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-developers
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: 1.7.1 release date?
On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 07:03:43PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Dec 1 12:52, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 05:45:40PM +0000, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> >- mv setup-1.7.exe setup.exe
>>
>> Don't we need to roll a new version of setup? The current version looks in
>> different locations depending on whether it's being run on Windows NT or not.
>>
>> Do we still want to do this? I think Corinna wants to keep a legacy 1.5 system
>
>I think so, yes. It's "for free" since it's still in setup.
>
>> around for Windows 95 users but, if we do that, then I think we need setup.exe
>> to make it clear that this is a stale version of Cygwin.
>
>I'm not overly concerned one way or the other. We can create a
>setup-1.5.exe and mv setup-1.7.exe setup.exe. This allows all users
>still to install Cygwin 1.5 ("Cygwin 1.7 is unusable for me!!!1!").
>The last bunch of 9x users will get the same 1.5 based stuff using any
>of these setups and we can simply add a text to setup.exe warning that
>9x users should upgrade to a newer version of Windows... or, we
>change setup.exe to run on NT only and 9x users are pointed to
>setup-1.5.exe. Whatever you prefer.
If we're keeping 1.5 then this is what I'd like to see:
1) It is frozen. New new updates. I don't think the mailing list should be
cluttered with new package issues and I don't want to keep running upset to
generate two setup.ini's.
2) You have to explicitly select it. I'd rather not have a setup.exe
which automatically chooses 1.5 if you're running on Windows 95. I
think the current setup.exe should pop up an error if it is attempted to
be run on a unsupported OS. Maybe there could still be one version of
setup.exe but you have to supply a --legacy option or something.
3) Optionally: Any mention of 1.5 be on it's on web page away from the
front page.
cgf