X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=dd5+sxbkY8C8AIno/lFAdO2Ko5aBrXogGd2B77/GQZ1 UXwxjILUWFiNHL3sHfO/ygz3RcQsQLsU6+il+IzKKi2d3xks0mMV68vZ1dDzmEOm jzTQOX9okmUGNMisGXpexHsnKvsXzYuAGpFzUbfR71zqRbgZZr4ZvY8ro6AJf3ew = DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=s7Ww2V75qzgdzmZY/mgo8S/JLyY=; b=AcZg6Y+DGb4/T/Uhw tgIltTGMY5zop5SuP3TJDoNqL2iF2DDaZip5YnMux/0fLzydtLy4U+rydFSMOFlq PRgqJOPfKwNQcZzHyV8LhRHof4goFv2qtL4pgUjP2XEKK2nPzHLyQEHdNUz2az+w PQXsKOTRK7+goFGZubzw/WBot0= Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: 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 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Received: by 10.220.76.137 with SMTP id c9mr5022346vck.48.1371498572509; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 12:49:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <51BF6846.5080509@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 21:49:26 +0200 From: marco atzeri User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Fwd: [Feature request] Setup64.exe should respect more recent packages' version References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Il 6/17/2013 9:27 PM, Vasiliy ha scritto: > Ok, I understand, and, yes, it's also about setup.exe. That would be > true if the package was marked as 'a test package', aka those marked > '[test]' in setup.ini, but what if they were not? From my example bash > 4.2 is not marked as [test] (I've changed 'installed.db' file > accordingly), yet setup(64) downgrades it to 4.1 > > Why not use two conditions instead of just one? Say, 'if package is > more recent, and not marked as [test], then do not downgrade (keep)'. > 0) please do NOT top post 1) installed.db have no info about test or current. That info is in setup.ini 2) about changing setup way of working, we need someone to write a patch. Please feel free to send your proposed one. I doubt it is on the top list of anyone else to change the current behaviour Regards Marco -- 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