On Dec 9 11:20, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Dec 8 14:55, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 07:16:51PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > >On Dec 8 13:00, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > >> I think that when 1.7 is adopted > > >> > > >> release-2 -> release > > >> release -> release-deprecated > > >> > > >> and we make setup.exe changes to accommodate that. > > > > > >I was just going to agree but ... does that work? The idea is that > > >people still using an old setup will get the old release. Since > > >"release" is fixed in old versions of setup, it might be more feasible > > >to stick to release-2 or to use something along the lines you suggested > > >at one point, like, say, "release-nt". > > > > Ah, right. I wasn't thinking that people who had the old release might not > > want to update. Too bad we didn't have a mechanism in setup.exe to provide > > a warning to people before updating. > > > > So, release-2 becomes a first-class directory, setup.exe -> > > setup-deprecated.exe > > setup-1.7 -> setup.exe? > > Sounds good to me.
Uh, I just remembered something I forgot so far. We don't even need two setup.exe versions. Setup-1.7 decides which setup ini file to use dependent on the Windows version. NTs get setup-2.ini, 9Xes get setup.ini. It even changes its layout a bit. For instance, for 9Xes you still get the choice of text/bin mounts, for NTs you don't. So we really only need a single setup.exe in future, AFAICS :) Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
