DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:from:reply-to:message-id:to:subject
	:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=Es8fIEmBfJCxevKR
	ibb0zY7z23bj1qdl6olpL+mzpatjOfo0UQfcOKoU56ux/wSNu6bgczeRVpU+myBg
	q5EB1kd+WEH6eZ2sr6rPjXg6RUvTSQiTvrQyI8Iuqb7FAccBaHUaSdxNKELOP1/M
	aUzKgDBJv1WmYR66Aw0bzdVpUqY=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 04:41:51 +0400
From: Andrey Repin <anrdaemon@yandex.ru>
Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Message-ID: <669445082.20140812044151@yandex.ru>
To: LMH <lmh_users-groups@molconn.com>, cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: update just ruby on offline cygwin installation
In-Reply-To: <53E959CC.3010102@molconn.com>
References: <53E3E248.6070301@molconn.com> <53E3E71D.8090208@cygwin.com> <53E94499.2080605@molconn.com> <44850477.20140812030058@yandex.ru> <53E959CC.3010102@molconn.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Greetings, LMH!

> The problem I have is that cygwin has a tendency to remove depreciated
> packages when updating. This is an older setup and there are critical
> components in the build that are no longer available in more recent
> cygwin packages.

If this is a "critical setup", then you should have a test environment
replicating your setup, to do any experimentation before deploying changes on
live system.
That's the basics of "critical environment" handling.

> If I let cygwin just do it's thing, it will break far more that it will fix.

Following your logic, we should never upgrade, and use DOS 1.0 on our
machines.

> Updating the entire cygwin install would mean moving to more recent versions
> of multiple packages and who knows how much time, effort, and resources
> would be involved in fixing all of that.

Nobody know, unless someone try it.
This list only providing support for current packages.
We'll do our best to help you resolve any issues that might arise from
upgrade, but it's unlikely anyone would see into any issues coming from
obsolete installs.
Sorry.

> At the moment, the server does exactly what it needs to in its
> current configuration, so there is little sense in wading into the
> quagmire of updates when there is little or noting to be gained.

Fail logic. Worse, it's presumptuous. The gain is rather obvious: better
interprocess- and system compatibility.
I.e., for Cygwin itself - lots of fork-related fixes for the past year.
There's also many other packages, which have been fixed/upgraded for similar
reasons.

To the more technical of your questions: yes, largely.


--
WBR,
Andrey Repin (anrdaemon@yandex.ru) 12.08.2014, <04:30>

Sorry for my terrible english...


--
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