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:message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject
	:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	q=dns; s=default; b=dd5+sxbkY8C8AIno/lFAdO2Ko5aBrXogGd2B77/GQZ1
	UXwxjILUWFiNHL3sHfO/ygz3RcQsQLsU6+il+IzKKi2d3xks0mMV68vZ1dDzmEOm
	jzTQOX9okmUGNMisGXpexHsnKvsXzYuAGpFzUbfR71zqRbgZZr4ZvY8ro6AJf3ew
	=
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:message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject
	:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	s=default; bh=s7Ww2V75qzgdzmZY/mgo8S/JLyY=; b=AcZg6Y+DGb4/T/Uhw
	tgIltTGMY5zop5SuP3TJDoNqL2iF2DDaZip5YnMux/0fLzydtLy4U+rydFSMOFlq
	PRgqJOPfKwNQcZzHyV8LhRHof4goFv2qtL4pgUjP2XEKK2nPzHLyQEHdNUz2az+w
	PQXsKOTRK7+goFGZubzw/WBot0=
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=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Received:	by 10.220.76.137 with SMTP id c9mr5022346vck.48.1371498572509; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 12:49:32 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID:	<51BF6846.5080509@gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 17 Jun 2013 21:49:26 +0200
From:	marco atzeri <marco DOT atzeri AT gmail DOT com>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Fwd: [Feature request] Setup64.exe should respect more recent packages' version
References:	<CAHYyVz6Euyswoakzc=-1cYN3K7OdbSTdtnUA2N_b0VntVKXk7Q AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <CAHYyVz6GRYFUUW-dux6bEEARLvHuhmwXUDDrocw-EO+V55sCDA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <CAHYyVz6J7Jw+B1jeV71q8VOpJ540r=6A8j1Yu-pQ05kx5KEZ9A AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
In-Reply-To:	<CAHYyVz6J7Jw+B1jeV71q8VOpJ540r=6A8j1Yu-pQ05kx5KEZ9A@mail.gmail.com>

Il 6/17/2013 9:27 PM, Vasiliy ha scritto:
> 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)'.
>


0) please do NOT top post

1) installed.db have no info about test or current.
   That info is in setup.ini

2) about changing setup way of working, we need someone to write
    a patch. Please feel free to send your proposed one.
   I doubt it is on the top list of anyone else to change
   the current behaviour

Regards
Marco


--
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 -