RFC: setup package in Base
Jon Turney
jon.turney@dronecode.org.uk
Wed Apr 11 16:56:00 GMT 2018
On 11/04/2018 00:14, Ken Brown wrote:
> On 4/10/2018 2:12 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
>> In order to speed up the adoption of the latest setup.exe, would it make
>> sense to ship it as a package? Here is an initial draft of what this
>> might look like:
>>
>> https://github.com/cygwinports/setup/blob/master/setup.cygport
I'm not sure upx packing setup here is a good idea, since it interferes
with debuggability, and we will be compressing the package archive anyhow.
>> Note that the executable itself is version/release-numbered so that we
>> never have to deal with replacing a running executable (setup itself).
True.
Not sure that when the setup package is upgraded, setup will be able to
remove itself, though.
(Old setup-${VERSION}-${RELEASE}.exe lingering may be a price worth
paying, though)
> I like the idea. One thing to think about is how to deal with the
> situation in which a buggy version of setup fails to update itself.
> Maybe we should modify the existing warning that's issued when a newer
> version of setup is available. It could say that setup should update
> itself, but it could also give a link to a script that does this
> manually in case something goes wrong.
The instruction that setup currently emits telling you to update setup
won't make a lot of sense if setup is then going to update itself
Also, I guess ideally setup should update itself first, rather than at
the same time as all other packages...
>> Also, as an alternative to a simple symlink, what about a wrapper script
>> (such as the attached) that would allow more "yum-like" commands like
>> "cygsetup update" or "cygsetup install foo bar"?
>
> I like this too. There seems to be no downside, since the wrapper
> accepts all existing setup flags.
More information about the Cygwin-apps
mailing list