X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status:	No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,SPF_HELO_PASS,TW_SZ,TW_ZG,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Message-ID:	<50185D8C.2000801@ludens.elte.hu>
Date:	Wed, 01 Aug 2012 00:34:52 +0200
From:	szgyg <szgyg AT ludens DOT elte DOT hu>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; hu; rv:1.9.2.28) Gecko/20120306 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.20 ThunderBrowse/3.81
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Setup shows ? instead of size for some packages
References:	<501370E3 DOT 60506 AT mvseac DOT com> <50145AC7 DOT 2020202 AT ludens DOT elte DOT hu> <5015BA05 DOT 6090901 AT mvseac DOT com>
In-Reply-To:	<5015BA05.6090901@mvseac.com>
X-ELTE-SpamScore:	-8.0
X-ELTE-SpamLevel:
X-ELTE-SpamCheck:	no
X-ELTE-SpamVersion:	ELTE 2.0
X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details:	score=-8.0 required=5.9 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00,L_AUTH autolearn=ham SpamAssassin version=3.3.1 -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -5.0 L_AUTH Caesar auth -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000]
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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

[keep it on the list, please]

On 7/30/2012 12:32 AM, L Anderson wrote:
> szgyg wrote:
>> On 7/28/2012 6:56 AM, L Anderson wrote:
>>> Call me slow to notice but I'm seeing more packages appearing with size
>>> ? mark in the "View" window when I run cygwin setup. Also, I notice that
>>
>> No, it isn't a problem. Those packages don't have any binary content,
>> that's why setup.exe show ? as their size. We use them when more than
>> one package is generated from the same upstream source, e.g.
>> libsomething1, libsomething-devel and something-doc. In this case the
>> package something, with "(source)" in its description, will contain the
>> source, and the other packages will contain the binary stuff. What Aaron
>> has described is another possible source of ? sizes, but then the
>> packages would be in the Misc category, as setup.exe wouldn't have the
>> category info either.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Another thing I noticed is that under the "New" column of
> setup.exe-View, the items are "Skip" where I haven't installed the
> source packages. In those cases, when I toggle the "Skip", the version
> numbers shows and the sizes are filled in and remain so even if I toggle
> back to "Skip".
>
> The case Aaron described is not my case because I use my own mirror and
> everything is there. So I guess I'm curious as to why source packages
> are not treated the same as binary packages when it comes to size.

A package consists of a binary and a source part (you can install them 
separately by ticking the checkboxes on the package selection dialog), 
and setup.exe shows size of the binary part by default, as usually this 
is what you want to install.

The split source packages are results of afterthought. They add another 
level of indirection by representing the source/binary distinction not 
only on the part level, but on the package level too. However, setup.exe 
knows nothing about this, so it can't handle those packages very well.

szgyg

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -