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:reply-to:mime-version:to
	:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=jSCnYiZywlTmaayZ
	SwQZeskcem/2+oo3IYmFmzXzDQ44DD8NLA1zbEnnHKmyZyZFos+98PVKyENfeq41
	phvF5YU5UNKCM/4WkkRcNteUUypInk4ci58lTf3avxEeqoaqqipGeiddODUk/mfk
	yUnwRzzptjL6XncCoFGuZS8z2VI=
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:reply-to:mime-version:to
	:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=w5AMyDVMFu3I8xEIsamYcq
	YLWyI=; b=I5IOto2EYZqFdY48XisaLC29/6lBXbm2UD3/SE6mPA3qCPO/oWiY6o
	NavYsuKomsbZGXLTHfwvwJpURdVF964NICDuWr4dT88qTlM7MzgobQXkkfY3feuo
	6GyG8CGch42d4fCprC/BOUDHDVL9j3Yf+xDWxzensllfqAhjvvME4=
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=2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,BOTNET,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE autolearn=no version=3.3.1
Message-id:	<51BF66C6.4000005@cygwin.com>
Date:	Mon, 17 Jun 2013 15:43:02 -0400
From:	"Larry Hall (Cygwin)" <reply-to-list-only-lh AT cygwin DOT com>
Reply-to:	cygwin AT cygwin 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>

Please, no <http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#TOFU>.

On 6/17/2013 3:27 PM, Vasiliy wrote:
> 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)'.

That is the way it works for non-test packages.

I'm not sure what mirror you're using but on mirror.mcs.anl.gov, bash
4.1.11 is the only version available for x64.

-- 
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 -