Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>, <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
From: Chris Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 21:36:48 -0400
To: cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Subject: Re: Next net release will be 1.1.3
Message-ID: <20000522213648.A15412@cygnus.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
References: <20000522172249 DOT A10159 AT cygnus DOT com> <200005222150 DOT RAA31092 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <20000522191937 DOT B14279 AT cygnus DOT com> <200005222328 DOT TAA31855 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i
yo: cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
In-Reply-To: <200005222328.TAA31855@envy.delorie.com>; from dj@delorie.com on Mon, May 22, 2000 at 07:28:38PM -0400

On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 07:28:38PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
>> It is because I want people who are already using 1.1.2 (i.e.  the
>
>Except that the snapshots shouldn't *be* 1.1.2.  They should have a
>snapshot-type version number (like 1.1.1.20000522).

I think you forgot an IMO there.

I can easily envision a user responding that the version is "1.1.1"
when asked what the version number is above, especially if they know
that cygwin's version numbers are "always" x.y.z.

OTOH, if they say that the version is "1.1.5" then we know that they're
using a snapshot because it's an odd number.

>>current snapshots) to be able to update using setup.  Setup won't
>>consider it an update if they already have 1.1.2 on their systems.
>
>How would installing a snapshot effect setup's database?  Setup isn't
>used to install snapshots, tar is.  Setup should still think
>cygwin-1.1.1.tar.gz is installed.
>
>I'd rather fix setup to know that it is an upgrade.  If there never was
>a cygwin-1.1.2.tar.gz, why would setup think that one was installed?
>Just installing a snapshot shouldn't convince setup that a new
>"official" version is installed, and if it does, that's a bug in the
>snapshots (they shouldn't use official-looking version numbers) and/or
>in setup (it should know better).

I modified setup a while ago to use the installed version of cygwin
rather than the "recorded" version.  Using an actual version number is
a lot more accurate than something recorded at "setup" time especially
when users may be switching back and forth between different dlls.

If we could record version numbers in every package we release, I think
that would be the best way to do all of this update stuff.  So far only
cygwin stores this info.

>At best, setup should think that the user has a corrupt
>cygwin-1.1.1.tar.gz installed.
>
>Tossing version numbers regularly because of flaws in our system is
>just laziness on our part, and the flaws need to be fixed, not worked
>around.

No one is talking about tossing version numbers.  That's your
interpretation.

cgf