Re: RFC: setup package in Base

[Brian Inglis <Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca>]

On 2018-04-11 10:56, Jon Turney wrote:
> 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
> 
> 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...

Update check could be quick if a temp redirect is set up on the server from the
canonical name for backward compatibility, and HEAD If-Modified-Since request
used a la wget -N, curl -z, before the elevated child is spawned.

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