Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 16:04:24 EST
X-Mailer: Virtual Access by Atlantic Coast PLC, http://www.atlantic-coast.com/va
Message-Id: <VA.000006cc.00cb62d6@thesoftwaresource.com>
To: Earnie Boyd <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: Re: setup.exe busted.  Please fix?
In-Reply-To: <3AB12696.7F5FF9B0@yahoo.com>
From: Brian Keener <bkeener AT thesoftwaresource DOT com>
Reply-To: bkeener AT thesoftwaresource DOT com

Earnie Boyd wrote:
> Yes, it's a convention and setup.ini will be a helper.

What got me in trouble I think is I modified setup to scan the directory 
as well for any files we might exist that are not in setup but match 
packages - partly in anticipation of one day being able to put files 
there that do not match packages and let setup find them and install them 
without modifying setup.ini.  This also accommodated where a previous 
file existed but setup did not reference a previous version.  I forgot to 
check if the files I was getting from the scan though were src tarballs 
or install tarballs - I hadn't ever downloaded any source I never picked 
up on the resulting confusion.

Thanks for the convention clarification.