On 2010/01/08 2:38 PM, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote: > On 01/08/2010 03:41 PM, Christian Franke wrote: >> Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote: >>> On 01/07/2010 09:39 PM, David Gast wrote: >>>> There are two problems with updating cygwin. >>>> >>>> 1. If you run setup.exe from bash, bash cannot be updated >>>> because the file is in use. >>> >>> Sure. This is the reason 'setup.exe' exists. It's a Windows >>> "feature" that keeps you from replacing a file that's in use. >>> 'setup.exe' was created to provide a native Windows program >>> to avoid the problem of something like 'setup.exe' needing to >>> update files that are in use by it. If it were possible to >>> replace files in use with the same ease as on Linux, say, >>> then 'setup.exe' would never be needed since things like >>> rpm, yum, and apt, to name a few, could be used directly >>> to install and update Cygwin. >> >> Cygwin 1.7 actually allows to replace an executable which is still in >> use: >> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2009-12/msg00423.html > > But this is of no help here. The fact that Cygwin has this feature > internally > won't make 'setup.exe' use it. If someone wants to offer a patch for > 'setup.exe' > to make it be able to be run from a Cygwin shell, I'm sure it will be > thoughtfully > considered.
Not to beat a dead hippo here, but if Cygwin allows in-use files to be replaced, then what is 'setup.exe' needed for? (Aside from the initial bootstrap of Cygwin, of course.) Shouldn't it be possible to have proper package management---like dpkg, apt, rpm, yum, etc---from within Cygwin now? Just wondering. -SM -- -- 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
