andrew clarke wrote: > On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 07:50:48AM +1100, andrew clarke wrote: > >> Section 2 of the FAQ might also put people off using Setup because >> it's described as a "work-in-progress" and seemingly a bit of a >> moving target. > > Actually, just out of interest, will new Setup programs always be > backward-compatible (within reason) with packages designed for old > versions of Setup? The point being, a user should expect to be > able to install an old .tar.bz2 file from a local directory using > the latest version of Setup. If not, it should be recommended that > users keep their old version of setup.exe (and not just overwrite > it with the newest setup.exe) because the new version may not be able > to install packages designed for the old version, because it's a > work-in-progress.
The package format has never broken compatibility yet, and I don't think it ever will. > --08:06:16-- http://cygwin.com/setup.exe > > 4 Last-Modified: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 00:50:47 GMT > > Hmm, nobody is working on it after all? Oh, lots of work has been going on, but all in CVS. Max. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
