X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4D6CD103.7000303@gmx.de>
References: <ikf9e3$ub2$1 AT dough DOT gmane DOT org>	<ikfe1p$f00$1 AT dough DOT gmane DOT org>	<ikgf2f$vtm$1 AT dough DOT gmane DOT org>	<fggnm61cfbkp0fm6jm0lvrns74bk56bls4 AT 4ax DOT com>	<ikgjlh$tk7$1 AT dough DOT gmane DOT org>	<aamnm61uhbmgbrq007c6oag7cd7n9hpdt2 AT 4ax DOT com>	<ikgt6p$ubn$1 AT dough DOT gmane DOT org>	<4D6BFD09 DOT 8020600 AT gmx DOT de>	<AANLkTimi6R8MFSH63quHW3EqV4z5ucwtgNEPmCWWfjjc AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>	<4D6CD103 DOT 7000303 AT gmx DOT de>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 12:46:05 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTinM+oB9m1K5vFz3rVR-sr1sYPdhJ0Wg33czP1oZ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: setup.exe considerations (was: Doubtful about unison)
From: Andy Koppe <andy DOT koppe AT gmail DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
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 1 March 2011 10:57, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Am 01.03.2011 08:20, schrieb Andy Koppe:
>> On 28 February 2011 19:52, Matthias Andree wrote:
>
>>> Which is the problem: the unison command was compiled against a newer
>>> cygwin1.dll than yours.
>>
>> To be fair, setup.exe ought to be able to resolve or warn about such
>> version dependencies. Unfortunately the infrastructure for that isn't
>> in place, as it would require version requirements to be expressed in
>> packages' setup.hint files (rather than in their READMEs, as they are
>> at the moment).
>
> No it doesn't require such version dependencies.
>
> As a lightweight alternative, setup.exe might just recursively select
> all "requires" packages that a newly installed or upgraded package
> depends on "for update" (possibly from the same version branch,
> curr/test/prev), making sure not to implicitly downgrade.

Good idea, although that would entail unnecessary (and unwanted)
updates, for example, the Cygwin DLL would get updated whatever
package you installed, even if the package was built years ago.

> On the other hand, Cygwin package maintainers do a pretty good job of
> not breaking existing setups, so "update everything" (to the "curr"
> version) is usually a safe bet.

True, and anything else is unsupported.

Andy

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