1.7.1 release date?

Christopher Faylor cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@cygwin.com
Tue Dec 1 18:10:00 GMT 2009


On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 07:03:43PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Dec  1 12:52, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 05:45:40PM +0000, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> >- mv setup-1.7.exe setup.exe
>> 
>> Don't we need to roll a new version of setup?  The current version looks in
>> different locations depending on whether it's being run on Windows NT or not.
>> 
>> Do we still want to do this?  I think Corinna wants to keep a legacy 1.5 system
>
>I think so, yes.  It's "for free" since it's still in setup.
>
>> around for Windows 95 users but, if we do that, then I think we need setup.exe
>> to make it clear that this is a stale version of Cygwin.
>
>I'm not overly concerned one way or the other.  We can create a
>setup-1.5.exe and mv setup-1.7.exe setup.exe.  This allows all users
>still to install Cygwin 1.5 ("Cygwin 1.7 is unusable for me!!!1!").
>The last bunch of 9x users will get the same 1.5 based stuff using any
>of these setups and we can simply add a text to setup.exe warning that
>9x users should upgrade to a newer version of Windows...  or, we
>change setup.exe to run on NT only and 9x users are pointed to
>setup-1.5.exe.  Whatever you prefer.

If we're keeping 1.5 then this is what I'd like to see:

1) It is frozen.  New new updates.  I don't think the mailing list should be
cluttered with new package issues and I don't want to keep running upset to
generate two setup.ini's.

2) You have to explicitly select it.  I'd rather not have a setup.exe
which automatically chooses 1.5 if you're running on Windows 95.  I
think the current setup.exe should pop up an error if it is attempted to
be run on a unsupported OS.  Maybe there could still be one version of
setup.exe but you have to supply a --legacy option or something.

3) Optionally: Any mention of 1.5 be on it's on web page away from the
front page.

cgf



More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list