Multiple downloads from multiple mirrors confusion

[Harold L Hunt II]

Jay,

This is a general Cygwin setup.exe question that is not specific to 
XFree86.  Please send it to cygwin@cygwin.com.  The people you want to 
contact are not on this mailing list.  Be forewarned, the people that 
you are about to contact now come with 150% meanness for free!

Harold

Jay Smith wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> It sure is frustrating that each mirror creates it's own package 
> download directory.
> 
> Thus (unless I am doing it wrong), each time I get more files from a 
> different mirror (because the previous mirror(s) won't respond (i.e. 
> purdue), a new directory is created and thus I have to run setup.exe 
> multiple times in the order of the original directory creation.  That 
> seems to be the only way to retrace history and install the most recent 
> version of *my* set of files.  However, per a and b above, if I get 
> additional files from one of those mirrors, now things are out of order 
> so to speak.
> 
> Maybe this illustrates:
> 
> 2003-01-01  Mirror #1 download creates a Directory #1
> 
> 2003-02-01  Mirror #1 no longer responds, thus some additional needed
>    files are downloaded from Mirror #2 thus creating Directory #2
> 
> At this point, to do an install on a new PC, I have to run setup.exe 
> against Directory #1 and then AGAIN against Directory #2.  A bit of a pain.
> 
> 2003-03-01  An *updated* file is needed. However, now Mirror #2 is not
>    responding.  So, I go back to Mirror #1.  However, when I do, Mirror #1
>    supplies an updated setup.ini file which it warns may no longer work
>    with the older files in Directory #1.  I download the needed *updated*
>    file which thus goes in Directory #1.
> 
> At *this* point, to do an install on a new PC, I have to run setup.exe 
> against Directory #1 and Directory #2 (just as before), HOWEVER, now 
> Directory *#1* contains the most recent version of that *updated* file 
> obtained on 2003-03-01.  Is there a chance that the *updated* file in 
> Directory #1 will be overwritten with the older file that is in Diretory 
> #2?
> 
> 
> I am sure that I don't understand the fine points of this system. 
> However, it seems to me (easy for me to say) that everything should 
> download into a *single* package download directory.
> 
> Jay
>