X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.9 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 21:20:13 -0600
From: Tom Schutter <t DOT schutter AT comcast DOT net>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: semi-automated installation and/or updates
Message-ID: <20120821032013.GD4690@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> <1217756072 DOT 20120820071446 AT mtu-net DOT ru>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1217756072.20120820071446@mtu-net.ru>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
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 Mon 2012-08-20 07:14, Andrey Repin wrote:
> >> You SHOULD NOT run rebaseall manually, unless you really need to do so.

Do you have any solid reason to backup this statement?  Any known
conditions where it definitely should not be run?

> > 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.)

The reference was already there, but I added some more comments
regarding the run of rebaseall.

-- 
Tom Schutter

--
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