X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:57:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Igor Pechtchanski <pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
To: Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes <sthoenna AT efn DOT org>
cc: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Inconvenient ghostscript and transfig dependences
In-Reply-To: <20051221083342.GB3016@efn.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.63.0512211053290.8494@slinky.cs.nyu.edu>
References: <317460-22005122202324167 AT cantv DOT net> <43A8A0D8 DOT 6060307 AT cygwin DOT com>  <20051221083342 DOT GB3016 AT efn DOT org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 07:24:56PM -0500, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
> > Sorry but there is currently no way to represent "either/or"
> > dependencies via "setup.exe" (PTC).  That said, there's no reason that
> > you can't override "setup.exe" and not install gs-no-X11.  If you know
> > that's what you want, then you should feel free to do so.  If your
> > gripe is that "setup.exe" will try to install gs-no-X11 each time you
> > run it, you should feel free to manually edit /etc/setup/install.db to
> > include the package name and an impossibly high version number to fool
> > "setup.exe" into thinking you already have a version installed that is
> > more current than what it has available to it.
>
> This keeps getting advocated, but in my testing it does *not* work.
> If you have found otherwise, or see somewhere in the source for setup
> where this is supposedly implemented, please give some detailed
> information.
>
> But AFAICT, setup seems to have no concept of higher/lower version
> numbers, nor do I see how setup *could* understand the variety of
> version numbers out there.  Which is higher, 20030307 or 1.875?
> 2.5.4a or 2.5.4?  2.8.0 or 2.10.1?  These all involve assumptions
> that may or may not be true.

Yes, you're correct.  I've also been occasionaly guilty of recommending
this option, and it indeed does not work.  The code in setup.exe only
checks for version equality, so if you have "installed != current",
"current" will be selected, even if "installed" is higher (for some
definition of higher).

It might be quicker (and easier) to implement a "lock package" option in
installed.db, so that locked packages never get upgraded, even if their
version is not the same as "curr".  <http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#PTC>
(which I will provide eventually, though someone else is welcome to beat
me to it).
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_		pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		igor AT watson DOT ibm DOT com
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"Las! je suis sot... -Mais non, tu ne l'es pas, puisque tu t'en rends compte."
"But no -- you are no fool; you call yourself a fool, there's proof enough in
that!" -- Rostand, "Cyrano de Bergerac"

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/