Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , 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 To: Ronald Landheer Cc: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Evolution/0.15 (Preview Release) Date: 02 Nov 2001 20:46:25 +1100 Message-Id: <1004694386.6940.56.camel@lifelesswks> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Nov 2001 09:50:41.0080 (UTC) FILETIME=[D5232380:01C16383] On Fri, 2001-11-02 at 20:32, Ronald Landheer wrote: > I agree that it's bad practice on the maintainers behalf, but I think > Setup should be able to handle it anyway: either it should not offer a > package it won't be able to unpack, or it should be able to unpack > anything it offers (regardless of whether it's .gz or .bz2, and > regardless of where it happens to live: if found & offered, make good > the offer). Granted. I just have no motivation to fix it, but if you have the time, or someone else does, I won't object to patches that address this cleanly. > Nope: when I downloaded the tree, that's where it was - not in > latest/newlib-man but in latest/cygwin. > BTW: this is a *second* error - the first one (sloppy maintainers) is > a different one (though it boils down to the same thing: offering what > it doesn't do) Hmm, that's funny, setup.ini lists it as latest/newlib-man/... can you get reproduce the funny download behaviour? 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/