Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: bug with setup.exe: saw tetex-beta even though I did not select
	prev
Organization:	Jan at Appel
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From:	Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke AT gnu DOT org>
Date:	Tue, 08 Apr 2003 19:57:35 +0200
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.GSO.4.44.0304031227120.21921-100000@slinky.cs.nyu.edu> (Igor
	Pechtchanski's message of "Thu, 3 Apr 2003 12:37:52 -0500 (EST)")
Message-ID:	<87n0j050ts.fsf@peder.flower>
User-Agent:	Gnus/5.090016 (Oort Gnus v0.16) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux)
References:	<Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 44 DOT 0304031227120 DOT 21921-100000 AT slinky DOT cs DOT nyu DOT edu>
MIME-Version:	1.0

Igor Pechtchanski <pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu> writes:

> Could you require that the older packages be uninstalled before installing
> the newer tetex-base and tetex-bin?

Setup does not have a `conflicts:' afaik, but I don't see how that
should help?  The new packages should get installed automagically
through the new `requires:' fields for the old packages.

It looks like packages were deselected, or something went wrong with
the dependencies; I think that when there's a typo in the `requires:',
subsequent dependencies do not get istalled.

> 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?

Yes; combined with the confusion of all the tetex packages in the
global namespace, I'd like to drop all old (over 1 year old) stuff.

> I realize that mucking with /etc/setup/installed.db outside of setup.exe
> is dangerous and undesirable.

Yes.

> It's probably better to just use the above
> script to check that the older packages were in fact uninstalled.

I don't think that's really necessary; all old packages have `new'
versions that are empty, so should effectively do an uninstall.

Jan.

-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke AT gnu DOT org> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien       | http://www.lilypond.org


--
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 -