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>
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
content-class:	urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	RE: release setup now?
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3
Date:	Tue, 19 Mar 2002 17:35:21 +1100
Message-ID:	<FC169E059D1A0442A04C40F86D9BA760014C54@itdomain003.itdomain.net.au>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
From:	"Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To:	"Charles Wilson" <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
Cc:	"CygWin-Apps" <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id g2J6ZRm31504

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Wilson [mailto:cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 5:25 PM
> To: Robert Collins
> Cc: CygWin-Apps
> Subject: Re: release setup now?
> 
> 
> Robert Collins wrote:
> 
> > Can we? Huh huh?
> 
> I think so.  I know of two minor (non-show-stopper) nits:
> 
> 1) IF (and only if) folks have used the setup-snapshots AND they 
> happened to use a particular version (dunno which one, 
> sorry), then the 

probably all the currently available ones :}.
 
> This has been fixed in setup itself -- but the bad .lst.gz 
> files remain. 
>   This *may* cause trouble in the future (when the .lst file 
> is re-read 
> for uninstall) but
>    a) it only affects a few people
>    b) it may not even be a problem (don't borrow trouble)
>    c) it's easily fixed by hand

It's not a problem that can be solved easily by us. I think it's the
provide they paid for helping out - I know I paid it on _many_ list
files. The solution, in case it's not blindingly obvious, is to
reinstall the affected packages with the now-released version.
 
> 2) It seems that when uninstalling (or upgrading), if the uninstalled 
> package leaves behing a directory that is empty, the directory is not 
> removed.  Not a big deal, and certainly not a showstopper.

Hmm, has that behaviour changed? I'll add a TODO for it.

Rob

- Raw text -