Mail Archives: cygwin/2003/04/03/12:38:03
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> Robert Collins <rbcollins AT cygwin DOT com> writes:
>
> > Thi is by design. We have a single namespace for all packages, even if
> > they don't have [curr] elements. In fact prev only elements get
> > promoted to curr.
>
> Ah, I didn't know that. That's unfortunate, in this case. The old
> tetex-beta and texmf* packages were removed from the archive. Dummy
> `upgrade-helper' packages with newer versions were added, that depend
> on the new tetex packages.
>
> > You should still have recieved consistent packages, what didn't get
> > installed?
>
> Probably the texmf tree. Tetex consists of 7 packages. The fact
> obsolete packages (named tetex-beta and texmf*) are also listed, may
> add to the confusion; the user probably sees 11 tex-related packages.
>
> >From the [curr] release, to get a working tex installation, you need
> tetex-bin, and one of tetex-tiny or tetex-base. You can do that by
> selecting one of tetex, tetex-tiny, or tetex-base. If you select
> tetex-bin, you only get the tex binaries, so that you may combine that
> with an already installed texmf tree (read: miktex/texlive).
>
> The upgrade-helpers have been around for over a year. Maybe we should
> simply remove them?
>
> Jan.
Jan,
Could you require that the older packages be uninstalled before installing
the newer tetex-base and tetex-bin? How many people are likely to still
be keeping (and actively using) the older releases of tetex-beta from
(more than) a year ago? And how many of those are likely to want to
upgrade now?
You could also use a separate script to check for the existence of the
older packages that were to be replaced by the upgrade helpers and perform
the necessary fixups... At a guess, the only fixups needed are a)
deleting the files that were in the older packages and aren't in the newer
ones (are there any?) and b) fixing /etc/setup/installed.db to reflect the
fact that the older packages aren't installed anymore.
I realize that mucking with /etc/setup/installed.db outside of setup.exe
is dangerous and undesirable. It's probably better to just use the above
script to check that the older packages were in fact uninstalled.
Igor
--
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
|\ _,,,---,,_ pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ igor AT watson DOT ibm DOT com
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty.
-- Leto II
--
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/
- Raw text -