This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Installer names not meaningful enough
On 12/14/2016 4:58 PM, Erik Soderquist wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 4:50 PM, cyg Simple <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> And if we were purely *nix your argument might hold merit but this setup
>> executable provides a Windows OS based install of a Windows based
>> application set known as Cygwin.
> If we were purely *nix, we wouldn't be on Windows in the first place.
>> The name of the executable has never been a problem; why are you trying
>> to create one? There are just as many that would keep it simple and
>> leave the name as is.
> I don't recall anyone trying to create a problem so much as find out
> the reasoning behind the decision and ask for the setup executable
> version information to be more accessible than it currently is. At
> present, it does not appear that the cygwin pages list the current
> setup executable version at all, forcing either an aborted setup run
> when the setup executable itself reports that the setup.ini file
> indicates the currently running executable is outdated, or downloading
> *something* to see if the version of setup available for download has
If you that concerned about it you can check the repository tags at
https://cygwin.com/git/gitweb.cgi?p=cygwin-apps/setup.git;a=tags to find
the current released version.
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple