Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 18:04:15 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: Robert Collins <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
Cc: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: setup.exe suggestion [ptsekov AT syntrex DOT com: Re: sshd dies]
Message-ID: <20011109180415.D11462@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: Robert Collins <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>,
	cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20011109111335 DOT E24506 AT redhat DOT com> <01b401c16972$94129ac0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <01b401c16972$94129ac0$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.21i

On Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 10:02:16AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
>To: <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
>Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 3:13 AM
>Subject: setup.exe suggestion [ptsekov AT syntrex DOT com: Re: sshd dies]
>
>
>> It probably would be a good idea to add an "is cygwin running?" check
>> to setup.exe.  It could be a little tricky to determine, though, since
>> the name of the shared regions that cygwin uses can change.
>
>Errgh, I really don't like this.
>Checking if package foo is running before upgrading it, yes.
>Checking if cygwin is running at all, no.
>
>> I'm sort of loath to add a standard named entity in cygwin just to
>> accomodate setup.exe.
>>
>> Possibly, just walking through all of the processes and seeing if
>they've
>> loaded cygwin1.dll is a brute force approach.
>
>Which doesn't cover all cases :p. (Ie cygwin1.dll is only one file to be
>detected for write issues.)
>
>What we need is to be able to check for any of the .exe's or .dll's in a
>package, before uninstalling, and allow a [cancel][retry] option. You're
>right that the snapshot approach is probably best.

Maybe we can force this by changing how the files are written?  If we use
the right sharing, maybe even Windows 9x will complain on overwriting a
file.

cgf