Mail Archives: cygwin/2003/08/06/12:41:15
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 06:07:32PM +0200, David Balazic wrote:
> > Cycling through the versions is a dangerous thing these days - you should
> > only
> Is there any other way to get from some version selection back to "Skip" ?
> If it is dangerous, then it should be disabled or accompanied with a
> warning.
Nope - but you usually don't want to do that :) - you only want to do that if
what you have is working..
> > do it if you know what you're doing. The version Setup proposes is the one
> > you
> > should normally use, because it's the one the maintainer wants you to use.
> > The
> > maintainer is usually right about what you should use..
> There was no note saying that the maintainer prefers one version over
> another.
> They all were offered to choose from.
Of course, but the one proposed by default by Setup is the one the maintainer
prefers.. otherwise, Setup would propose something else..
> > > > You used Setup to install, didn't you?
> > > yes.
> > > > Use cygcheck to get the version of less, then :)
> > > I llearned something new.
> > > rpm would catch the incompatibility though :-)
> > versioned dependencies in Setup are a work-in-progress *and* require the
> > maintainers to put them in the setup.hint files. Neither is magic.
> >
> > IIRC, rpm doesn't use any wizzardry either: versioned dependencies are the
> > maintainer's job.
> >
> > As for the state of progress on versioned dependencies in Setup (before
> > you
> > ask) IIRC it needs testing more than anything else - but one of the Setup
> > people will surely correct me if I'm wrong..
> >
> Well I guess I just tested it :-)
Nope, you didn't, unless you added the versioned dependency to setup.hint,
regenerated setup.ini, etc.
cgf asked this thread to stop - let's do that :)
rlc
--
Beam me up, Scotty! It ate my phaser!
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -