X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
	:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; q=dns; s=default; b=kB
	FP+6+yIDMavLafGioXzG7oDLUMy0AKCzpZlWC3DCyKXnFFrF0uPxd7hrBXNsyLDd
	49P0pyxt/OG8SNmTj+prvQPya11SoG1HC+hkZxS4raUXWkgdM6Sf3VVWHL3zNiy8
	QX2YE3K10rtneLfBIZ/Bfh6RUXERqqRDG00RJQTBE=
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
	:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; s=default; bh=AGIFG98Z
	4ihOIKYKQvCMn7j32JE=; b=Xhi+JdPMOiaDq570tt3mdJpkS60AmVmslFAI7VKL
	S69SdtpUU3fRmMNj+MCQxj/n87KgDt5UWgrtf4EmW+2L5mTx/wp1To4cNRJAC5r8
	osjyU2lsR6Q8Kc1xtQmeLzwWRKGOQduGNtE13hNfJUjzxTemlIyGJsoIeI98FK++
	s30=
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
X-Spam-SWARE-Status:	No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_40,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Received:	by 10.50.171.161 with SMTP id av1mr5770576igc.104.1371497256166; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 12:27:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To:	<CAHYyVz6GRYFUUW-dux6bEEARLvHuhmwXUDDrocw-EO+V55sCDA@mail.gmail.com>
References:	<CAHYyVz6Euyswoakzc=-1cYN3K7OdbSTdtnUA2N_b0VntVKXk7Q AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <CAHYyVz6GRYFUUW-dux6bEEARLvHuhmwXUDDrocw-EO+V55sCDA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
Date:	Mon, 17 Jun 2013 21:27:36 +0200
Message-ID:	<CAHYyVz6J7Jw+B1jeV71q8VOpJ540r=6A8j1Yu-pQ05kx5KEZ9A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Fwd: [Feature request] Setup64.exe should respect more recent packages' version
From:	Vasiliy <testtest_2005 AT ukr DOT net>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

Ok, I understand, and, yes, it's also about setup.exe. That would be
true if the package was marked as 'a test package', aka those marked
'[test]' in setup.ini, but what if they were not? From my example bash
4.2 is not marked as [test] (I've changed 'installed.db' file
accordingly), yet setup(64) downgrades it to 4.1

Why not use two conditions instead of just one? Say, 'if package is
more recent, and not marked as [test], then do not downgrade (keep)'.

_______________________________
From: "Larry Hall (Cygwin)" <reply-to-list-only-lh at cygwin dot com>
To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 15:01:37 -0400
Subject: Re: [Feature request] Setup64.exe should respect more recent
packages' version
References: <CAHYyVz6Euyswoakzc=-1cYN3K7OdbSTdtnUA2N_b0VntVKXk7Q at
mail dot gmail dot com>
Reply-to: cygwin at cygwin dot com

________________________________

On 6/17/2013 2:54 PM, Vasiliy wrote:

Could it be possible for Setup64.exe that it would not offer
downgrading packages by default if their more recent counterparts are
installed? Example of an undesirable behavior: installed is bash 4.2,
but 4.1 version is wrongly suggested, etc.

Setup suggests downgrading only when you've install a test package.
There's nothing distinctive about 'setup.64.exe' vs 'setup.exe' in
this regard.

--
Larry

_____________________________________________________________________

A: Yes.
> Q: Are you sure?
>> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?

--
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 -