RE: Setup.exe status

["Parker, Ron" <rdparker at butlermfg dot com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Earnie Boyd [mailto:earnie_boyd@yahoo.com]

<appropriate portions snipped>

> --- DJ Delorie <dj@delorie.com> wrote:

> > > I am assuming the release will be in a subdirectory
> > > named cygwin-1.1.0 from the links that are posted there.  

> > Well, not "error" but still "undecided".  Chris and I were talking
> > about this, and my thoughts were that the version number of cygwin
> > itself (the dll) would be 1.1.0 (i.e. there would be a
> > cygwin/cygwin-1.1.0.tar.gz file) but the actual 
> distribution would be
> > something like <ftp>/current (i.e. <ftp>/current/cygwin/*.tar.gz)

Like I said, I was ass-uming a subdirectory based upon the previous
directory names, cygwin-b19 & cygwin-b20.  However, I will gladly change it
to use the current or latest subdirectory, or whatever when a decision is
made.

> You mean <ftp>/cygwin/latest don't you, with latest being a link to
> cygwin-1.1.0?  I don't see any reason to change what's 
> already established.

I was also assuming that the /cygwin/ was part of the <ftp> address taken
from the mirror.html page.  This was based upon the fact that the links
there are of the form http://www.something.dom/some-dir/cygwin or something
similar.

This leads to another question.  Since I am uncertain how to interpret file
dates that may or may not be present when using FTP via HTTP can anyone
recommend an algorithm for determining which file in a package's
subdirectory has the highest version number?  I am imagining various
scenarios like any of the following:

* cygwin-1.1.0.tar.gz
* cygwin-1.1.1.tar.gz

or

* package-0.9a.tar.gz
* package-0.9a1.tar.gz

or

* package-20000320.tar.gz
* package-20000325.tar.gz

or

* package-alpha-1.tar.gz
* package-beta-1.tar.gz
* package-1.0.tar.gz

or, God forbid

* package-030900.tar.gz
* package-021000.tar.gz	(US or Euro date order?)

Anyway, you get my point.  I would gladly come up with a routine of my own
if no one is aware of an existing one.  Can we "enforce" a standard version
numbering scheme?  Which is doubtful, IMO. 

Could I rely on there being a package-latest.tar.gz file or link in each
directory? This would be the simplest solution for me to implement.