Re: setup*exe for legacy and current versions

2010-01-07 Thread Mark J. Reed
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 05:00:36PM +, Andy Koppe wrote: >>It checks its own name using argv[0] and acts accordingly. > > Ooh.  Prograi... SCIENCE! -- Mark J. Reed -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/proble

Re: setup*exe for legacy and current versions

2010-01-06 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 05:00:36PM +, Andy Koppe wrote: >2010/1/6 Fergus: Something wrong somewhere? >> >>> ??No. >> >> O .. K .. thanks for that ... >> So how does the same executable differing only in name trigger two entirely >> different installations? > >It checks its own name using a

Re: setup*exe for legacy and current versions

2010-01-06 Thread Andy Koppe
2010/1/6 Fergus: >>> Something wrong somewhere? > >>  No. > > O .. K .. thanks for that ... > So how does the same executable differing only in name trigger two entirely > different installations? It checks its own name using argv[0] and acts accordingly. Andy -- Problem reports: http://cy

Re: setup*exe for legacy and current versions

2010-01-06 Thread Fergus
>> Something wrong somewhere? > No. O .. K .. thanks for that ... So how does the same executable differing only in name trigger two entirely different installations? Fergus -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentatio

Re: setup*exe for legacy and current versions

2010-01-06 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 04:04:00PM +, Fergus wrote: >Confused. > >At the moment the two setup executables http://cygwin.com/setup.exe and >http://cygwin.com/setup-legacy.exe are identical: > >sha1sum *exe >fdc9379ed58231cddd25bb7b448426681a3dd3c3 *setup-legacy.exe >fdc9379ed58231cddd25bb7b4484