Re: RFC: setup package in Base

[Jon Turney <jon dot turney at dronecode dot org dot uk>]

On 11/04/2018 00:14, Ken Brown wrote:
> On 4/10/2018 2:12 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> > In order to speed up the adoption of the latest setup.exe, would it make
> > sense to ship it as a package?  Here is an initial draft of what this
> > might look like:
> >
> > https://github.com/cygwinports/setup/blob/master/setup.cygport

I'm not sure upx packing setup here is a good idea, since it interferes 
with debuggability, and we will be compressing the package archive anyhow.

> > Note that the executable itself is version/release-numbered so that we
> > never have to deal with replacing a running executable (setup itself).

True.

Not sure that when the setup package is upgraded, setup will be able to 
remove itself, though.

(Old setup-${VERSION}-${RELEASE}.exe lingering may be a price worth 
paying, though)

> I like the idea.  One thing to think about is how to deal with the 
> situation in which a buggy version of setup fails to update itself. 
> Maybe we should modify the existing warning that's issued when a newer 
> version of setup is available.  It could say that setup should update 
> itself, but it could also give a link to a script that does this 
> manually in case something goes wrong.

The instruction that setup currently emits telling you to update setup 
won't make a lot of sense if setup is then going to update itself

Also, I guess ideally setup should update itself first, rather than at 
the same time as all other packages...

> > Also, as an alternative to a simple symlink, what about a wrapper script
> > (such as the attached) that would allow more "yum-like" commands like
> > "cygsetup update" or "cygsetup install foo bar"?
>
> I like this too.  There seems to be no downside, since the wrapper 
> accepts all existing setup flags.