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: A bug (?) in the current setup.exe 2.78.2.15
From: Robert Collins <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To: Pavel Tsekov <ptsekov AT syntrex DOT com>
Cc: Fergus <fergus AT bonhard DOT uklinux DOT net>, cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
In-Reply-To: <3BE2E375.EB32B4E4@syntrex.com>
References: <001201c163a7$5d1610e0$6fc82486 AT medschool DOT dundee DOT ac DOT uk> 
	<3BE2E375 DOT EB32B4E4 AT syntrex DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <1004744797.9054.65.camel@lifelesswks>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution/0.15 (Preview Release)
Date: 03 Nov 2001 10:58:51 +1100
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Nov 2001 00:03:06.0724 (UTC) FILETIME=[EA511240:01C163FA]

On Sat, 2001-11-03 at 05:18, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
> Fergus wrote:
> > 
> > Robert,
>ou fill CURR cell with this element:
> 
> Cycle through PREV, CURR and TEST to look for holes
>   Loop 1: PREV's version field is empty, "cmp" is 0 we set the gap to
> PREV
>   Loop 2: CURR's version field is empty, "cmp" is 0 we set the gap to
> CURR
>   Loop 3: TEST's version is not zero
>            Test if TEST's version is equal to the package we a currently
> running
>            snap2() for. It's not - its greater. So we've found a hole
> (CURR) 
>            and set it to the older package.
> Leave loop

Does this imply that the older file is explicitly marked as TEST
somewhere?
As for that algo, yes it sounds buggy to me. I think the solution should
be that if a package has no explicit trust (we have to guess at
prev/curr/test) and it's greater than the version in TEST and its a
locally scanned file, we just ignore it. That or replace the current
TEST item with the new greater versioned one.

There is a longer discussion we can have, about package versions,
sequence holes and trust levels, but I need to assemble some thoughts
first.

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/