Re: Installer names not meaningful enough
On 12/14/2016 4:58 PM, Erik Soderquist wrote: > On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 4:50 PM, cyg Simple wrote: >> And if we were purely *nix your argument might hold merit but this setup >> executable provides a Windows OS based install of a Windows based >> application set known as Cygwin. > > If we were purely *nix, we wouldn't be on Windows in the first place. > >> The name of the executable has never been a problem; why are you trying >> to create one? There are just as many that would keep it simple and >> leave the name as is. > > I don't recall anyone trying to create a problem so much as find out > the reasoning behind the decision and ask for the setup executable > version information to be more accessible than it currently is. At > present, it does not appear that the cygwin pages list the current > setup executable version at all, forcing either an aborted setup run > when the setup executable itself reports that the setup.ini file > indicates the currently running executable is outdated, or downloading > *something* to see if the version of setup available for download has > changed. If you that concerned about it you can check the repository tags at https://cygwin.com/git/gitweb.cgi?p=cygwin-apps/setup.git;a=tags to find the current released version. -- cyg Simple -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Re: Installer names not meaningful enough
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 4:50 PM, cyg Simple wrote: > And if we were purely *nix your argument might hold merit but this setup > executable provides a Windows OS based install of a Windows based > application set known as Cygwin. If we were purely *nix, we wouldn't be on Windows in the first place. > The name of the executable has never been a problem; why are you trying > to create one? There are just as many that would keep it simple and > leave the name as is. I don't recall anyone trying to create a problem so much as find out the reasoning behind the decision and ask for the setup executable version information to be more accessible than it currently is. At present, it does not appear that the cygwin pages list the current setup executable version at all, forcing either an aborted setup run when the setup executable itself reports that the setup.ini file indicates the currently running executable is outdated, or downloading *something* to see if the version of setup available for download has changed. -- Erik -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Re: Installer names not meaningful enough
On 12/14/2016 4:17 PM, Erik Soderquist wrote: > On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 6:28 AM, Vlado wrote: >> Erik (and others), >> >> don't worry about Setup version, please. >> >> Use this script: >> https://gist.github.com/Vlado-99/1d59bf05b70481377ff90bb53e13bb2d >> >> - Setup is downloaded only if gpg signature changes (only very small .sig >> file is re-downloaded every time) > > > While work arounds are great and appreciated, they still don't address > the original question of why the version of the setup executable isn't > part of the filename like it is in most of the *nix packages and > installers (or at least most of the ones I have been exposed to). > And if we were purely *nix your argument might hold merit but this setup executable provides a Windows OS based install of a Windows based application set known as Cygwin. The name of the executable has never been a problem; why are you trying to create one? There are just as many that would keep it simple and leave the name as is. -- cyg Simple -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Re: Installer names not meaningful enough
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 6:28 AM, Vlado wrote: > Erik (and others), > > don't worry about Setup version, please. > > Use this script: > https://gist.github.com/Vlado-99/1d59bf05b70481377ff90bb53e13bb2d > > - Setup is downloaded only if gpg signature changes (only very small .sig > file is re-downloaded every time) While work arounds are great and appreciated, they still don't address the original question of why the version of the setup executable isn't part of the filename like it is in most of the *nix packages and installers (or at least most of the ones I have been exposed to). -- Erik -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Re: Installer names not meaningful enough
On 7.12.2016 23:06, Erik Soderquist wrote: On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Brian Inglis wrote: Use wget -N to prevent duplicate downloads when the name, date, and size don't change. That only works if I am downloading to the same location/name as the source is -- Erik Erik (and others), don't worry about Setup version, please. Use this script: https://gist.github.com/Vlado-99/1d59bf05b70481377ff90bb53e13bb2d it makes things much easier: - Setup is downloaded only if gpg signature changes (only very small .sig file is re-downloaded every time) - gpg signature of Setup is validated (no need to do it manually) - services I use, are stopped and restarted automatically (no need to restart Windows after update; add Yours services to script if needed) Vlado -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Re: Installer names not meaningful enough
On 2016-12-07 15:06, Erik Soderquist wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Brian Inglis wrote:
>
>> Use wget -N to prevent duplicate downloads when the name, date, and
>> size don't change.
>
> That only works if I am downloading to the same location/name as the
> source is
You can use e.g. wget -N -P /var/cache/ with URIs for multiple individual
files and their detached .sigs: e.g. some of setup_x86{,_64}.exe{,.sig}
setup.ini{,.xz,bz2}{,.sig}, then after gpg --verify, cp -pu to where
you want to use or store them, appending a release number if you want,
as described in earlier posts.
--
Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Re: Installer names not meaningful enough
On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Brian Inglis wrote: > Use wget -N to prevent duplicate downloads when the name, date, > and size don't change. That only works if I am downloading to the same location/name as the source is -- Erik -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Re: Installer names not meaningful enough
On 2016-12-07 14:40, Erik Soderquist wrote: > On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 7:18 AM, Lee Dilkie wrote: >> I'd agree that adding "cygwin" to the setup program would be nice >> but it's certainly not the windows "way", lots of programs use just >> "setup.exe". > > I don't recall "the Windows way" being a goal of Cygwin. > >> Versioning can't be added to the file name because the setup >> program itself isn't versioned, or at least isn't the same version >> as the cygwin you are installing... the cygwin version come from >> the servers... > > Yes, the setup program is versioned, and will complain about being > outdated on its own anytime it sees a setup.ini that reports a newer > version of the setup program exists. > > I've often wondered why the setup program doesn't include its > version number in the name like ever other package does, for > example: openssh-7.3p1-2.tar.xz > > On my own systems, I download the setup program and check its > version, then rename the file myself to include the version number. I > know I would greatly appreciate the setup version number in the file > name, and suspect this could be accomplished without breaking the > existing scripted downloads by having setup.exe and setup_x64.exe be > symlinks to whatever the current version is. Having the version > number of the setup program thus available could also prevent a lot > of duplicate downloads. I know I would look at the version number > before downloading rather than download and then compare to what I > have. Use wget -N to prevent duplicate downloads when the name, date, and size don't change. -- Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Re: Installer names not meaningful enough
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 7:18 AM, Lee Dilkie wrote: > I'd agree that adding "cygwin" to the setup program would be nice but it's > certainly not the windows "way", lots of programs use just "setup.exe". I don't recall "the Windows way" being a goal of Cygwin. > Versioning can't be added to the file name because the setup program itself > isn't versioned, or at least isn't the same version as the cygwin you are > installing... the cygwin version come from the servers... Yes, the setup program is versioned, and will complain about being outdated on its own anytime it sees a setup.ini that reports a newer version of the setup program exists. I've often wondered why the setup program doesn't include its version number in the name like ever other package does, for example: openssh-7.3p1-2.tar.xz On my own systems, I download the setup program and check its version, then rename the file myself to include the version number. I know I would greatly appreciate the setup version number in the file name, and suspect this could be accomplished without breaking the existing scripted downloads by having setup.exe and setup_x64.exe be symlinks to whatever the current version is. Having the version number of the setup program thus available could also prevent a lot of duplicate downloads. I know I would look at the version number before downloading rather than download and then compare to what I have. -- Erik -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Re: Installer names not meaningful enough
On 2016-12-07 07:46, Ian Lambert wrote: > On December 7, 2016 4:57:02 AM EST, Duncan Roe wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 10:11:42AM +0100, Gerrit Haase wrote: >>> 2016-12-01 11:51 GMT+01:00 Roberto Ríos Gallardo says: Please give the installers more meaningful names. In particular, make sure "cygwin" is part of it. "setup-x86_64.exe" is not very obvious. A version number would be nice too. >>> The version is part of setup.ini in the header: >>> # This file was automatically generated at 2016-12-05 09:43:16 UTC. >>> # >>> # If you edit it, your edits will be discarded next time the file is >>> # generated. See http://cygwin.com/setup.html for details. >>> release: cygwin >>> arch: x86_64 >>> setup-timestamp: 1480930996 >>> setup-version: 2.876 >>> ... >> Where is setup.ini? > $ locate setup.ini > /cygwin-install/path/ftp.some.mirror/x86_64/setup.ini More generally, without locate installed or updated, you can find it quickly with: $ grep -A1 '^last-cache$' /etc/setup/setup.rc last-cache C:/cygwin-package-cache at: $ ls $(cygpath $(sed '0,/^last-cache$/d;q' /etc/setup/setup.rc))/?*tp%3a%2f%2f*cygwin*%2f/x86*/setup.ini giving: $ grep '^setup-version:\s' $(cygpath $(sed '0,/^last-cache$/d;q' /etc/setup/setup.rc))/?*tp%3a%2f%2f*cygwin*%2f/x86*/setup.ini setup-version: 2.876 or: $ sed '/^setup-version:\s/!d;s///' $(cygpath $(sed '0,/^last-cache$/d;q' /etc/setup/setup.rc))/?*tp%3a%2f%2f*cygwin*%2f/x86*/setup.ini 2.876 Unwrap commands if required to copy and paste. -- Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Re: Installer names not meaningful enough
On December 7, 2016 4:57:02 AM EST, Duncan Roe wrote: >On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 10:11:42AM +0100, Gerrit Haase wrote: >> 2016-12-01 11:51 GMT+01:00 Roberto Ríos Gallardo says: >> > Please give the installers more meaningful names. In particular, >make >> > sure "cygwin" is part of it. "setup-x86_64.exe" is not very >obvious. A >> > version number would be nice too. >> >> The version is part of setup.ini in the header: >> >> # This file was automatically generated at 2016-12-05 09:43:16 UTC. >> # >> # If you edit it, your edits will be discarded next time the file is >> # generated. See http://cygwin.com/setup.html for details. >> release: cygwin >> arch: x86_64 >> setup-timestamp: 1480930996 >> setup-version: 2.876 >> ... >> >> >> Regards, >> Gerrit > >Where is setup.ini? > $ locate setup.ini /cygwin-install/path/ftp.some.mirror/x86_64/setup.ini Cheers -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Re: Installer names not meaningful enough
On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 10:11:42AM +0100, Gerrit Haase wrote: > 2016-12-01 11:51 GMT+01:00 Roberto Ríos Gallardo says: > > Please give the installers more meaningful names. In particular, make > > sure "cygwin" is part of it. "setup-x86_64.exe" is not very obvious. A > > version number would be nice too. > > The version is part of setup.ini in the header: > > # This file was automatically generated at 2016-12-05 09:43:16 UTC. > # > # If you edit it, your edits will be discarded next time the file is > # generated. See http://cygwin.com/setup.html for details. > release: cygwin > arch: x86_64 > setup-timestamp: 1480930996 > setup-version: 2.876 > ... > > > Regards, > Gerrit Where is setup.ini? Cheers ... Duncan. -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Re: Installer names not meaningful enough
2016-12-01 11:51 GMT+01:00 Roberto Ríos Gallardo says: > Please give the installers more meaningful names. In particular, make > sure "cygwin" is part of it. "setup-x86_64.exe" is not very obvious. A > version number would be nice too. The version is part of setup.ini in the header: # This file was automatically generated at 2016-12-05 09:43:16 UTC. # # If you edit it, your edits will be discarded next time the file is # generated. See http://cygwin.com/setup.html for details. release: cygwin arch: x86_64 setup-timestamp: 1480930996 setup-version: 2.876 ... Regards, Gerrit -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Re: Installer names not meaningful enough
On 2016-12-05 10:36, Stephen Paul Carrier wrote: > On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 11:37:41AM -0500, Ian Lambert wrote: >> On December 1, 2016 8:54:57 AM EST, cyg Simple wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 12/1/2016 8:25 AM, Vlado wrote: On 1.12.2016 13:51, Eliot Moss wrote: > I think that including the version of the setup program could be >>> helpful > - I tend > to add it (renaming the file by hand). However, clearly we've lived > with things this > way for a long time ... >>> >>> More than a score years. >>> I disagree. I have a script to update Cygwin. This script checks for new version >>> of setup, downloads, verifies signature, etc. Things would become much >>> more complicated with variable setup file name. Finally: Why should I care about the exact version number of setup? Script makes backups of the old setup files like setup.exe.0001, >>> 0002, ..., just for a cause, but never in the past I did have to looking >>> for the setup with exact version number. >>> >>> The only reason would be if you had an older version of the .ini file. >>> When the data prerequisites of the .ini file change there is a new >>> version of setup to handle that. > > Right, and the way to learn if this is the case is to run setup. I learn > that a new version is available by running the old version. > > Running setup is also the way to find out what is the version. > > I don't mind renaming the file myself, but would really appreciate any > way to know from the cygwin.com front page exactly which version of the > setup-*.exe is on offer. (The current version of Cygwin DLL is useful, > but not the same thing.) You can get the Setup version by installing upx and running: cp -fp $DIR/setup-x86*.exe /tmp/setup && \ upx -dqqq /tmp/setup&& \ egrep -ao '%%%\ssetup-version\s[.0-9]+' /tmp/setup | \ sed 's/%%%\ssetup-version\s//' && \ rm -f /tmp/setup -- Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Re: Installer names not meaningful enough
On 12/5/2016 1:25 PM, Andrey Repin wrote: Greetings, Stephen Paul Carrier! I don't mind renaming the file myself, but would really appreciate any way to know from the cygwin.com front page exactly which version of the setup-*.exe is on offer. (The current version of Cygwin DLL is useful, but not the same thing.) That may (will!) confuse people not familiar with insides of Cygwin environment. Possibly, but it doesn't strike me as overly difficult to explain that these are different version sequences. We also might be able to make the two numbering schemes look sufficiently different that they would be harder to confuse ... Regards - Eliot Moss -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Re: Installer names not meaningful enough
Greetings, Stephen Paul Carrier! > I don't mind renaming the file myself, but would really appreciate any > way to know from the cygwin.com front page exactly which version of the > setup-*.exe is on offer. (The current version of Cygwin DLL is useful, > but not the same thing.) That may (will!) confuse people not familiar with insides of Cygwin environment. -- With best regards, Andrey Repin Monday, December 5, 2016 21:25:04 Sorry for my terrible english... -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Re: Installer names not meaningful enough
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 11:37:41AM -0500, Ian Lambert wrote: > On December 1, 2016 8:54:57 AM EST, cyg Simple wrote: > > > > > >On 12/1/2016 8:25 AM, Vlado wrote: > >> On 1.12.2016 13:51, Eliot Moss wrote: > >>> I think that including the version of the setup program could be > >helpful > >>> - I tend > >>> to add it (renaming the file by hand). However, clearly we've lived > >>> with things this > >>> way for a long time ... > > > >More than a score years. > > > >> > >> I disagree. > >> I have a script to update Cygwin. This script checks for new version > >of > >> setup, downloads, verifies signature, etc. Things would become much > >more > >> complicated with variable setup file name. > >> Finally: Why should I care about the exact version number of setup? > >> Script makes backups of the old setup files like setup.exe.0001, > >0002, > >> ..., just for a cause, but never in the past I did have to looking > >for > >> the setup with exact version number. > >> > > > >The only reason would be if you had an older version of the .ini file. > >When the data prerequisites of the .ini file change there is a new > >version of setup to handle that. Right, and the way to learn if this is the case is to run setup. I learn that a new version is available by running the old version. Running setup is also the way to find out what is the version. I don't mind renaming the file myself, but would really appreciate any way to know from the cygwin.com front page exactly which version of the setup-*.exe is on offer. (The current version of Cygwin DLL is useful, but not the same thing.) Stephen Carrier -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
RE: Installer names not meaningful enough
Lee Dilkie sent the following at Thursday, December 01, 2016 7:19 AM >On 12/1/2016 5:51 AM, Roberto Ríos Gallardo wrote: >> Please give the installers more meaningful names. In particular, make >> sure "cygwin" is part of it. "setup-x86_64.exe" is not very obvious. >> A version number would be nice too. > >I'd agree that adding "cygwin" to the setup program would be nice >but it's certainly not the windows "way", lots of programs use just >"setup.exe". I've nominated "getcygwin" => getcygwin64.exe or getcygwin32.exe https://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/2013-09/msg00316.html - Barry Disclaimer: Statements made herein are not made on behalf of NIAID.
Re: Installer names not meaningful enough
On 12/1/2016 8:25 AM, Vlado wrote: > On 1.12.2016 13:51, Eliot Moss wrote: >> I think that including the version of the setup program could be helpful >> - I tend >> to add it (renaming the file by hand). However, clearly we've lived >> with things this >> way for a long time ... More than a score years. > > I disagree. > I have a script to update Cygwin. This script checks for new version of > setup, downloads, verifies signature, etc. Things would become much more > complicated with variable setup file name. > Finally: Why should I care about the exact version number of setup? > Script makes backups of the old setup files like setup.exe.0001, 0002, > ..., just for a cause, but never in the past I did have to looking for > the setup with exact version number. > The only reason would be if you had an older version of the .ini file. When the data prerequisites of the .ini file change there is a new version of setup to handle that. -- cyg Simple -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Re: Installer names not meaningful enough
On 1.12.2016 13:51, Eliot Moss wrote: I think that including the version of the setup program could be helpful - I tend to add it (renaming the file by hand). However, clearly we've lived with things this way for a long time ... I disagree. I have a script to update Cygwin. This script checks for new version of setup, downloads, verifies signature, etc. Things would become much more complicated with variable setup file name. Finally: Why should I care about the exact version number of setup? Script makes backups of the old setup files like setup.exe.0001, 0002, ..., just for a cause, but never in the past I did have to looking for the setup with exact version number. Vlado -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Re: Installer names not meaningful enough
On 12/1/2016 7:18 AM, Lee Dilkie wrote: > > > On 12/1/2016 5:51 AM, Roberto Ríos Gallardo wrote: >> Please give the installers more meaningful names. In particular, make >> sure "cygwin" is part of it. "setup-x86_64.exe" is not very obvious. A >> version number would be nice too. >> > > I'd agree that adding "cygwin" to the setup program would be nice but it's certainly not the windows > "way", lots of programs use just "setup.exe". > > Versioning can't be added to the file name because the setup program itself isn't versioned, or at > least isn't the same version as the cygwin you are installing... the cygwin version come from the > servers... I think that including the version of the setup program could be helpful - I tend to add it (renaming the file by hand). However, clearly we've lived with things this way for a long time ... Eliot Moss -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Re: Installer names not meaningful enough
On 12/1/2016 5:51 AM, Roberto Ríos Gallardo wrote: Please give the installers more meaningful names. In particular, make sure "cygwin" is part of it. "setup-x86_64.exe" is not very obvious. A version number would be nice too. I'd agree that adding "cygwin" to the setup program would be nice but it's certainly not the windows "way", lots of programs use just "setup.exe". Versioning can't be added to the file name because the setup program itself isn't versioned, or at least isn't the same version as the cygwin you are installing... the cygwin version come from the servers... -lee -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
