On 01/11/2010 03:23 AM, Steven Monai wrote:
I will do that. Thanks for your time.
I think this will give you a good background for understanding why 'setup.exe'
exists and some of the history for its initial and continued development and
the alternatives that have been discussed over time. Som
On 2010/01/10 6:45 PM, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
> So your argument is based on the desire to have *another* package
> manager application, besides 'setup.exe', that could be used from within
> Cygwin applications to update Cygwin applications?
Something like that, yes. The idea that one should b
On 01/10/2010 07:20 PM, Steven Monai wrote:
On 2010/01/10 3:00 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
Yes, if you do something brain-dead you can expect bad results.
There can be non-"brain-dead" reasons for attempting to upgrade one
package while holding another related one at a specific version.
On 2010/01/10 3:00 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 01:28:34PM -0800, Steven Monai wrote:
>> On 2010/01/10 12:31 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
>>> According to Christopher Faylor on 1/10/2010 12:27 PM:
No one thinks its a good idea.
>>>
>>> And here's one reason why. Newer vers
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 01:28:34PM -0800, Steven Monai wrote:
>On 2010/01/10 12:31 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> According to Christopher Faylor on 1/10/2010 12:27 PM:
>>> No one thinks its a good idea.
>>
>> And here's one reason why. Newer versions of cygwin1.dll introduce new
>> entry points. But
On 2010/01/10 12:31 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> According to Christopher Faylor on 1/10/2010 12:27 PM:
>> No one thinks its a good idea.
>
> And here's one reason why. Newer versions of cygwin1.dll introduce new
> entry points. But suppose you are updating cygwin1.dll and bash at the
> same time. I
According to Christopher Faylor on 1/10/2010 12:27 PM:
> This idea has been put forth many times since that time. The fact that
> it isn't implemented means that either 1) It's more difficult than you
> anticipate or 2) No one thinks its a good idea.
And here's one reason why. Newer versions of
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 09:36:50AM -0800, Steven Monai wrote:
>On 2010/01/09 2:09 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>On Jan 8 17:28, Steven Monai wrote:
>>>Not to beat a dead hippo here, but if Cygwin allows in-use files to be
>>>replaced, then what is 'setup.exe' needed for? (Aside from the initial
>>
On 2010/01/09 2:09 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jan 8 17:28, Steven Monai wrote:
>> Not to beat a dead hippo here, but if Cygwin allows in-use files to be
>> replaced, then what is 'setup.exe' needed for? (Aside from the initial
>> bootstrap of Cygwin, of course.) Shouldn't it be possible to h
On Jan 9 23:28, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 09, 2010 at 11:09:41AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >The most pressing problem is the replacement of the cygwin DLL itself.
> >It's like installing a new kernel in Linux. However, in Linux you have
> >to reboot to use the new kernel, whi
On Sat, Jan 09, 2010 at 11:09:41AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>The most pressing problem is the replacement of the cygwin DLL itself.
>It's like installing a new kernel in Linux. However, in Linux you have
>to reboot to use the new kernel, while Cygwin is just a DLL. After the
>rename and rep
On Jan 8 17:28, Steven Monai wrote:
> On 2010/01/08 2:38 PM, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
> > On 01/08/2010 03:41 PM, Christian Franke wrote:
> >> Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
> >>> On 01/07/2010 09:39 PM, David Gast wrote:
> There are two problems with updating cygwin.
>
> 1. If you ru
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 7:28 PM, Steven Monai wrote:
> Not to beat a dead hippo here, but if Cygwin allows in-use files to be
> replaced, then what is 'setup.exe' needed for? (Aside from the initial
> bootstrap of Cygwin, of course.) Shouldn't it be possible to have proper
> package management--
On 2010/01/08 2:38 PM, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
> On 01/08/2010 03:41 PM, Christian Franke wrote:
>> Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
>>> On 01/07/2010 09:39 PM, David Gast wrote:
There are two problems with updating cygwin.
1. If you run setup.exe from bash, bash cannot be updated
On 01/08/2010 03:41 PM, Christian Franke wrote:
Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
On 01/07/2010 09:39 PM, David Gast wrote:
There are two problems with updating cygwin.
1. If you run setup.exe from bash, bash cannot be updated
because the file is in use.
Sure. This is the reason 'setup.exe' exists.
Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
On 01/07/2010 09:39 PM, David Gast wrote:
There are two problems with updating cygwin.
1. If you run setup.exe from bash, bash cannot be updated
because the file is in use.
Sure. This is the reason 'setup.exe' exists. It's a Windows
"feature" that keeps you from r
On 01/07/2010 09:39 PM, David Gast wrote:
There are two problems with updating cygwin.
1. If you run setup.exe from bash, bash cannot be updated
because the file is in use.
Sure. This is the reason 'setup.exe' exists. It's a Windows
"feature" that keeps you from replacing a file that's in us
Nahor wrote:
Carl Lund wrote:
Hi--
I tried updating my Cygwin installation, and got a message indicating
that cygreadline6.dll was missing. I did not request any changes; I
was just trying to update my current configuration to the latest release.
My suspicion is that something has been recen
Carl Lund wrote:
Hi--
I tried updating my Cygwin installation, and got a message indicating
that cygreadline6.dll was missing. I did not request any changes; I was
just trying to update my current configuration to the latest release.
My suspicion is that something has been recently updated in
19 matches
Mail list logo
