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:reply-to:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=jSCnYiZywlTmaayZ SwQZeskcem/2+oo3IYmFmzXzDQ44DD8NLA1zbEnnHKmyZyZFos+98PVKyENfeq41 phvF5YU5UNKCM/4WkkRcNteUUypInk4ci58lTf3avxEeqoaqqipGeiddODUk/mfk yUnwRzzptjL6XncCoFGuZS8z2VI= 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:reply-to:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=w5AMyDVMFu3I8xEIsamYcq YLWyI=; b=I5IOto2EYZqFdY48XisaLC29/6lBXbm2UD3/SE6mPA3qCPO/oWiY6o NavYsuKomsbZGXLTHfwvwJpURdVF964NICDuWr4dT88qTlM7MzgobQXkkfY3feuo 6GyG8CGch42d4fCprC/BOUDHDVL9j3Yf+xDWxzensllfqAhjvvME4= 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=2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,BOTNET,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE autolearn=no version=3.3.1 Message-id: <51BF66C6.4000005@cygwin.com> Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 15:43:02 -0400 From: "Larry Hall (Cygwin)" Reply-to: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com 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 Please, no . On 6/17/2013 3:27 PM, Vasiliy wrote: > 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)'. That is the way it works for non-test packages. I'm not sure what mirror you're using but on mirror.mcs.anl.gov, bash 4.1.11 is the only version available for x64. -- Larry _____________________________________________________________________ A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email? -- 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