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
Message-ID: <000d01c0b41c$ca137290$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
From: "Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To: <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
References: <009201c0b373$270a6ee0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <20010323174032 DOT A30954 AT redhat DOT com> <200103232258 DOT RAA03576 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <00af01c0b3f0$e751e200$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <200103232349 DOT SAA03971 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <021801c0b3fb$97ff2d60$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <20010323204621 DOT B17066 AT redhat DOT com> <02ec01c0b406$6e3822b0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <20010323210835 DOT F17066 AT redhat DOT com> <031101c0b411$3f9cd3a0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <20010323222520 DOT A18513 AT redhat DOT com>
Subject: Re: setup revisit
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 15:42:08 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Mar 2001 04:36:31.0493 (UTC) FILETIME=[FFCA2B50:01C0B41B]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2001 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: setup revisit


> On Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 02:19:32PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> >
> >Oh. That wouldn't have affected what I was suggesting (the current
> >cygwin1.dll would be used unless an update was present - in which
case
> >it comes back to the current setup's behaviour.).
>
> And if the current cygwin1.dll is B20?  Do you want to rely on that?
> Or if it is a buggy snapshot?

"unless an update was present". Then it upgrades cygwin1.dll first - and
if it can't either gives the current cygwin1.dll upgrade failure "can't
open", or [insert desired message/action].

> >> >True.  I was hoping to put my nose down and hack all weekend, but
it
> >> >looks like rpm is *not* going to play nice so I'll give it a
slightly
> >> >lower priority for now.
> >>
> >> Don't let me discourage you though, Robert.  If you can get this
done,
> >> it will be pretty cool.  Doesn't RPM have a library like interface,
> >too?
> >>
> >
> >I'm lookinginto that. The RPM issue I'm fighting with currently is
> >porting sleepycat's db to raw win32 as a static library. (It doesn't
> >build with gcc unless you build it for cygwin :[).
> >
> >Once that's out of the way I can actually try to build rpm natively.
>
> The last I remember, rpm needed chroot() to function.  That's why I
> asked Corinna to implement this in Cygwin.
>

Thanks... Sounds like I'll be ripping code from there for use...

Rob