On Dec 9 06:46, Brian Dessent wrote: > Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > Uh, I just remembered something I forgot so far. We don't even need two > > setup.exe versions. Setup-1.7 decides which setup ini file to use > > dependent on the Windows version. NTs get setup-2.ini, 9Xes get > > setup.ini. It even changes its layout a bit. For instance, for 9Xes > > you still get the choice of text/bin mounts, for NTs you don't. So we > > really only need a single setup.exe in future, AFAICS :) > > Right, and since the 'release/' part is all in the .ini file anyway > setup.exe doesn't actually need to be changed at all to do the > switchover, it can be controlled entirely on sourceware just by telling > upset which release dir goes with which ini file. > > Here's my question: Do we really need to inflict this 8.7GB of churn[1] > on every mirror just for what seems to me to be a cosmetic reason for > wanting the directory name to be "release/"? Can't we just say that > release-2/ is now what the dir is called and move on? In other words, > the switchover procedure would be "mv setup-1.7.exe setup.exe".
Maybe the discussion looked a bit strange but that was actually what Chris and I already had agreed upon :) The other point was that release-2 needs to become an entire separated directory instead of a unionfs, that's what Chris meant by saying to make release-2 a first-class dir. So it's not *only* a "mv setup-1.7.exe setup.exe". Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
