Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Subject: RE: [BUG] in Setup (IMHO), concerning version scanning & extentions
From: Robert Collins <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To: Ronald Landheer <ronald AT minisat DOT com>
Cc: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
In-Reply-To: <NFBBIBMBMMAMDPDHMKEBOEAOCBAA.ronald@minisat.com>
References: <NFBBIBMBMMAMDPDHMKEBOEAOCBAA DOT ronald AT minisat DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Evolution/0.15 (Preview Release)
Date: 02 Nov 2001 20:20:55 +1100
Message-Id: <1004692856.6940.36.camel@lifelesswks>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Nov 2001 09:25:10.0970 (UTC) FILETIME=[451EE1A0:01C16380]

On Fri, 2001-11-02 at 19:55, Ronald Landheer wrote:

> I'm trying to reproduce the bug now.. (haven't actually looked at the 
> update number last time).
> 
> The answer is yes: update numbers are the same. "Install from Internet" 
> downloads everything on reinstall - regardless of whether I have it or 
> not, but "Install from local directory" gives me the availability of the 
> pack (which is right) but can't find it on unpack (which IMHO is wrong). 
> Notably, the filenames in setup.ini and in my directory tree to NOT 
> match (.tar.gz vs .tar.bz2).
> IMHO, setup should be more flexible here.

I don't see any reason to handle this case in setup: IMO it's bad
practice on the maintainers behalf (until now mitigated by the fact that
noone had predicted this :}).
 
> Another error, though: newlib-man is in the cygwin directory in my 
> dirtree (and found, so not downloaded again and offered as being there) 
> and assumed to be in the newlib-man directory (under latest) and thus, 
> not found for unpacking. setup.ini dates from today, dirtree (on itself) 
> doesn't - meaning I downloaded the newlib-man pack a while ago, don't 
> know when exactly, nor from where, but do know I used setup to do it.

So to reproduce this, one moves newlib-man-..tgz from latest/newlib-man
to latest/cygwin/ ?
 
> Wouldn't it be a good idea to use the same search for "packages I don't 
> have to download" and "packages I'm going to unpack"? Like that, you'll 
> at least have the same results twice.
> OK, OK, chiming.. This is getting close to an "if it itches, scratch it
> yourself" kinda thing.. Sorry..

No worries, uhmm, AFAICT setup uses identical logic to locate the files,
it doesn't 'search' at all. It's all controlled via setup.ini. So
newlib-man shouldn't be found at all, it doesn't exist. There is a scan
local process, which might be causing the confusion because the
newlib-man you've got has the same base as the setup.ini listed one.

The solution would be to ensure that locally found files don't get
merged with setup.ini listed tarballs.

Rob



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/