Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

[Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc.)]

andrew clarke wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 07:50:48AM +1100, andrew clarke wrote:
> 
> 
>>Section 2 of the FAQ might also put people off using Setup because it's
>>described as a "work-in-progress" and seemingly a bit of a moving target.
> 
> 
> Actually, just out of interest, will new Setup programs always be
> backward-compatible (within reason) with packages designed for old
> versions of Setup?  The point being, a user should expect to be
> able to install an old .tar.bz2 file from a local directory using
> the latest version of Setup.  If not, it should be recommended that
> users keep their old version of setup.exe (and not just overwrite
> it with the newest setup.exe) because the new version may not be able
> to install packages designed for the old version, because it's a
> work-in-progress.
> 
> "Expect features and functionality to change."
> 
> Unless the FAQ is inaccurate!


There are no plans to change the format of the packages.  I can't foresee
a need to ever do this.  Don't worry about such things unless you've
been given explicit need to do so.  It will give you ulcers! ;-)


> --08:06:16--  http://cygwin.com/setup.exe
> 
>  4 Last-Modified: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 00:50:47 GMT
> 
> Hmm, nobody is working on it after all?


The new version of setup is being actively worked on.  Need proof?
Check out the cygwin-apps email archive.  There's been lots of work
since 7/4/2002.  It makes for good reading if this is the kind of
information you crave.


-- 
Larry Hall                              lhall@rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      http://www.rfk.com
838 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
Holliston, MA 01746                     (508) 893-9889 - FAX


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/