This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?
At 13:59 2003-02-14, Christopher Faylor wrote:
Maybe a new naming convention might serve to deter the naive:
PackageName-versionOrDateTag.car ("Cygwin ARchive"). It would still be
a BZip2-compressed TAR file, just as Java's ".jar" files are PKZIP
files under a different name (and with some extra content structuring
On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 07:50:48AM +1100, andrew clarke wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 01:26:15PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>If I may, speaking on behalf of some of the less-technical Cygwin users,
>Obviously for simple .tar.bz2 files without any dependencies or post-
>install scripts, etc, untarring would appear to users to be a harmless
>thing to do.
While the uninitiated will think these files are something special and
unique to Cygwin's installer, they will still be amenable to processing
using the usual tools and all the same code will continue to work as it
did before (with the possible exception of a minor change to Setup to
know what ".car" means).
I make this suggestion about 50/50 serious / tongue-in-cheek.
If you are a nontechnical cygwin user, then why would you be making
any determination of what is harmless or not harmless? I would think
that it would be the reverse -- people who really know what they're
doing (or think they know what they're doing) would be untarring.
>I suspect people aren't reading the notes near the bottom of
>http://www.cygwin.com/download.html, or if they are, they don't believe
>what they read, notably the "Installing Cygwin using this method [untar]
>is not recommended." bit, because there's no explanation as to why
>it's not recommended.
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html