Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Message-ID: <010101c103cb$eb7607f0$0300a8c0@ufo> From: "Trevor Forbes" To: References: <005f01c101e3$4471fed0$6464648a AT ca DOT boeing DOT com> <20010702001752 DOT A20206 AT redhat DOT com> <004101c102d4$43517a20$0300a8c0 AT ufo> <20010702144536 DOT C12135 AT redhat DOT com> <004c01c103b1$60fbe460$0300a8c0 AT ufo> Subject: Re: Setup.exe 2.78.2.2 test satisfactory Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 23:54:49 +0930 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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sorry, I spoke too soon, when I did a further net tests, I still see incorrect package choices in the experimental. For example using bash with "view full" previous 2.05-6 -> 2.05-5 current 2.05-6 -> keep Exp 2.05-6 -> 2.05-4 Note "expermental" is picking up a earler package before "previous" At least the uninstalls have gone..... Regards Trevor ----- Original Message ----- From: "Trevor Forbes" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 8:44 PM Subject: Re: Setup.exe 2.78.2.2 test satisfactory > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Christopher Faylor" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 4:15 AM > Subject: Re: Setup.exe 2.78.2.2 test satisfactory > > > > On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 06:22:01PM +0930, Trevor Forbes wrote: > > >From: "Christopher Faylor" > > >> Anyone else tried this? > > > > > > > > >Yes, but the last time I reported setup was good, all hell broke loose > when > > >it was released.....;) > > > > > >This one, however, has some bugs...if you select experimental then > > >"view - full", the "new" column is full of uninstalls and some incorrect > > >versions. "view - partial" the same..... > > > > This is a pretty serious bug. I understand the uninstall. I don't > understand > > the "incorrect version". What is wrong with the version? > > > > cgf > > Sorry, for not being so clear..... The incorrect version I was referring to > was that some items were reverting to previous versions. However, your > fixed version has corrected the bugs I reported and works fine on the basic > tests I did... > Darn ...I just noticed you have made more changes.... > > Good work to all involved.... > > The delayed response is because I live in central Australia...... > > Regards Trevor > > >