On Apr 8 23:46, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Apr 8 14:16, Brian Dessent wrote: > > Okay, so, several years ago setup.exe HEAD was modified to look for > > "release" and "release_legacy" as the base dirname for packages > > depending on whether it was running on 9x/ME or NT/2k/etc. I understand > > Sorry, but I didn't remember that. Why didn't you just tell us? > > How do you differ the setup.ini files if you only have different release > subdirs? setup_legacy.ini? > > > that having Cygwin 1.7 playground is a different concept, but why should > > it be handled differently? Why not "release_1.7"? This is all > > temporary anyway IIUC, since it's just for testing packages built with > > 1.7, which will eventually all be moved over into just plain "release" > > anyway, right? If this is *not* temporary then how does it fit into the > > idea of having a legacy 9x/ME area? > > When I came up with that a couple of days ago, I thought it might be bad > to rename the current release area for 1.5 so that it keeps working as > is and downloading from the 1.7 release area requires to make the > conscience choice to use the 1.7 setup. If we can do this with a > release-1.7 plus a setup-1.7.ini file, than that's ok for me, too.
And, apart from the actual names used, can we get a matching setup.exe perhaps this week? Or the next one? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
