Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:56:15 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: 1.3.4
Message-ID: <20011031165615.B10999@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20011031113304 DOT A7957 AT redhat DOT com> <3BE05ED8 DOT 7 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3BE05ED8.7@ece.gatech.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.21i

On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 03:28:08PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>>Ok, the theory is that the execvp bug has been fixed, the ftpd bug has
>>been fixed, the rsync "Dr. Watson" has been fixed.
>>
>>Can everyone try the latest snapshot/cvs and report any problems here?
>
>
>Latest cvs cygwin1.dll seems to "work okay" -- I didn't do anything 
>special, or run any kind of torture test.  I just built, installed, and 
>used it -- I'm still using it for "normal" stuff without problems.  (I 
>realize this may not be exactly the kind of report you were looking for, 
>but it IS a data point, and is IS good news. Hopefully that is welcome 
>enough).  The next part is not so good.

This is actually just the report I was looking for.

So was Jonathan's report, for that matter.  This helps me know where
I stand.

>setup.exe (2.112):  The current vs. new vs. prev vs. test detection 
>algorithm doesn't seem to work properly.  (e.g. parsing 
>/etc/setup/installed.db and/or setup.ini)

Out of curiousity, is any of this behavior duplicated in the branch
version of setup?

cgf