MD5s of setup.exe on mirrors.
Markus E.L.
ls-cygwin-2006@m-e-leypold.de
Mon May 14 20:25:00 GMT 2007
"LarryHall(Cygwin)" writes:
> Alexander Sotirov wrote:
>> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>> It was actually all academic before since: 1) there was nothing wrong
>>> with the setup.exe on the mirrors and 2) people shouldn't have been
>>> running setup.exe from the mirrors to begin with.
>>
>> Can you elaborate on why people shouldn't run setup.exe from the mirrors? I
>> don't see what is the difference between setup.exe and the other packages. If
>> you trust the mirror for all other binaries, why don't you trust it for setup.exe?
>
> Propagation time delays would be one reason. Since it's easy to grab
> 'setup.exe' from the source, there's no sense using one that might be
> dated.
setup.exe is/was almost two years old. It doesn't seem to change too
often. Did you mean setup.ini instead? But setup.ini is coming from
the mirror, isn't it?
(And this is a serious question: If it comes from the mirror, what
happens if a mirror has setup.ini updated, but not all of the packages
yet?)
Regards -- Markus
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
More information about the Cygwin
mailing list