9x aware setup.exe (was Re: EOL for Windows 95/98/Me)

Christopher Faylor cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@cygwin.com
Wed Feb 28 15:50:00 GMT 2007

On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 10:15:26AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Feb 27 17:11, Brian Dessent wrote:
>> [ moving from developers@ to cygwin-apps@ for setup.exe discussion ]
>> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> > - Identify the machine it's running on and choose the right path
>> >   to setup.ini and the release subdir.
>> > 
>> >   For now I suggest having two ini files, setup.ini and setup_9x.ini,
>> >   as well as two subdirs, release and release_9x(*).
>> Okay, I have a patch committed just now that implements this.  Actually
>> it wasn't necessary to tell setup about the name of the release dir,
>> since that part of the path is specified in the setup.ini file.  So this
>> new setup.exe will look for setup_9x.bz2 / setup_9x.ini if not running
>> on NT, and that file should contain the new release dir in the 'install'
>> and 'source' lines, e.g.
>> install: release_9x/cygwin/cygwin-1.5.24-2.tar.bz2 1395214
>> 262bc9ddbedc8681573a5e34fd97d526
>> source: release_9x/cygwin/cygwin-1.5.24-2-src.tar.bz2 11307944
>> 08e3d13b4ebb3473dd96e99436ff7f29
>> I tested this locally using a VMware Win98 image and it seems to do the
>> right thing, but of course it would always be good to get more testers. 
>> I thought I'd wait until the mirrors actually contain a setup_9x.ini
>> file before making this available as a setup snapshot.
>Thanks, Brian, it's highly appreciated.
>I'm just wondering if we should create a 9x mirror already now, or if we
>should wait just before the first 1.7.0 release.
>Hmm, what about this?
>We just create a release_9x symlink for now and a setup_9x.ini generated
>from setup.ini by running it through sed -e 's/release/release_9x/'.
>This allows testing and deploying the new setup.exe tool very soon.  It
>has the aditional advantage that most users already are using the right
>setup version when 1.7.0 gets released once.

I woke up this morning and realized that it shouldn't be called "9x" but
rather "legacy".  Then it should be slightly clearer that this
repository supports older windows and maybe even now-obsolete cygwin


More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list