Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender:	cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID:	<3CF65413.A77DACD1@cistron.nl>
Date:	Thu, 30 May 2002 18:32:19 +0200
From:	Ton van Overbeek <tvoverbe AT cistron DOT nl>
X-Accept-Language:	en, en-US, en-GB, nl, sv
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com, johnm AT falch DOT net, carl_sorensen AT byu DOT edu
Subject:	Re: Setup 2.218.2.9 fails to read setup.ini file from prc-tools mirror

The error messages which Carl saw come from iniparse.cc, which in turn is produced
from the parser definition in iniparse.y.

From the definitions in iniparse.y it is clear that the sdesc and ldesc arguments
have to be put in quotes in order to be recognized as a single token.
So, as John said, the example at the bottom of the page
(http://sources.redhat.com/cygwin-apps/setup.html) is wrong and should be
corrected. (Rob, are you listening ?)

One thing which maybe could cause problems is the accomodation of the md5 checksum
support in setup.ini.
See the description on http://sources.redhat.com/cygwin-apps/setup.html.
Adding md5 checksums to the setup.ini for prc-tools could be a good idea anyway in
order to be compatible with future versions of setup.

An other thing which might be going on is that after the download
from setup.ini from sourceforge (via http) the file does not get
properly closed, and/or does not get the right permissions to be opened
again for reading by the parser. All these permission problems do
not exist on Win9x.

One thing Carl could try is to use the latest setup snapshot on
http://cygwin.com/setup-snapshots/.
The latest one right now is setup-2.249.exe.
See if the problem is still there on XP with that version.

I myself have no access to an XP machine, so I cannot help any more with this.
Hope this sheds a little more light on the problem.

Ton van Overbeek

- Raw text -