X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:36:58 -0500 (EST) From: Igor Peshansky Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com To: Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes cc: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Cygwin Setup: Fatal Error: Uncaught Exception In-Reply-To: <20060125024444.GB4272@efn.org> Message-ID: References: <43D467F0 DOT 4020706 AT tlinx DOT org> <43D46B88 DOT FD612AE AT dessent DOT net> <20060123112502 DOT GB2188 AT efn DOT org> <43D52923 DOT C90D9967 AT dessent DOT net> <20060125024444 DOT GB4272 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: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , 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 Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 02:56:39PM -0500, Igor Peshansky wrote: > > Moving to cygwin-apps, as this is likely to get technical. > > > > On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Brian Dessent wrote: > > > > > Igor Peshansky wrote: > > > > > > > I've looked at this a bit. Here's the weird part: the error says > > > > "Uncaught Exception", but all the throws of that exception appear > > > > to be properly wrapped in try/catch blocks. So a simple "change > > > > exception into an mbox" kind of solution won't work here. More > > > > debugging is needed. > > > > > > The reason for the box is that the md5 checking was changed to run > > > in a different thread than originally designed (now in the main > > > thread instead of the download thread IIRC) and that thread does not > > > have any particular catch handler for that exception, only the > > > TOPLEVEL_CATCH which punts with the generic error. > > > > Do you mean packagemeta::ScanDownloadedFiles() calling > > packageversion::scan(), which calls check_for_cached()? Then yes, > > this isn't properly wrapped in a try/catch. I'd like to verify that > > this is the culprit (when someone sends me the corrupt tarball), but I > > think I see a proper fix for this. Will submit a patch shortly. > > Just to reemphasize, these are *not* corrupt tarballs. They are > tarballs exactly as downloaded, extracted, and installed. It's just > that later the versions on the cygwin mirror became different while > keeping the same version/filename. I verified in a couple of the cases > that the newer version actually had executables rebuilt, with slightly > different file sizes and timestamps. > > I don't think I have any of them around any more, but if you were to > pick a current tarball in your local package directory and un-bzip2 it > and re-bzip2 it with a different compression level, you should see the > problem. What Brian said. I've since managed to reproduce the problem with a zero-sized tarball (but you're right, anything with a mismatched size or md5 hash would have worked -- or, rather, not worked) and posted a patch. I would appreciate some comments on the discussion we had with Brian (on cygwin-apps). Igor -- http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/ |\ _,,,---,,_ pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu | igor AT watson DOT ibm DOT com ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!) |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' old name: Igor Pechtchanski '---''(_/--' `-'\_) 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/