X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_THEBAT,KHOP_THREADED,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 07:14:46 +0400 From: Andrey Repin Reply-To: Andrey Repin Message-ID: <1217756072.20120820071446@mtu-net.ru> To: Tom Schutter , cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: semi-automated installation and/or updates In-Reply-To: <20120818201425.GA21116@shadow.schutter.home> References: <20120818163404 DOT GA8853 AT shadow DOT schutter DOT home> <1523147992 DOT 20120818223708 AT mtu-net DOT ru> <20120818201425 DOT GA21116 AT shadow DOT schutter DOT home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: 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 Greetings, Tom Schutter! >> if "%ERRORLEVEL%" EQU "0" goto :endif_check_admin >> >> should be EQL, not EQU. Keep in mind that this comparison WILL fail, if >> extended mode is disabled. >> Fail-proof syntax: >> IF NOT ERRORLEVEL > Actually, EQU is correct. From "if /?": > where compare-op may be one of: > EQU - equal Mine says "EQL" ... So much for M$ consistency... > I changed to the "if [not] errorlevel " syntax to reduce the > dependancies on extended mode. Note that there are probably other > places that depend upon extended mode. I haven't noticed anything apparent. >> References to _TEMPFILE MUST be quoted. You're referring to a filename, >> which may contain spaces. > You are correct. I normally quote filenames when expanding them, I just > missed that one. Fixed. >> You SHOULD NOT run rebaseall manually, unless you really need to do so. > I added the call to rebaseall because of this post by Corinna: > http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2012-08/msg00320.html > Installing more packages that are forgotten in the first run of > setup.exe is what I (and I suspect others) do all the time. I would > love to get some feedback either way on this issue. That's something that should be handled in setup.exe, IMO. May be it's worth putting a clear note, that this is a workaround for existing inconsistency? (With a reference you gave me here.) -- WBR, Andrey Repin (anrdaemon AT freemail DOT ru) 20.08.2012, <07:10> Sorry for my terrible english... -- 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