This is the mail archive of the cygwin-patches mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] cygcheck -s should not imply -d


On Jan 13 13:04, Jon TURNEY wrote:
> On 13/01/2011 12:33, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Jan 11 14:26, Jon TURNEY wrote:
> >> On 11/01/2011 08:10, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>> I wasn't quite sure either, but while running cygcheck with Jon's patch
> >>> it started to make more sense.  We can also change the docs to ask for
> >>> `cygcheck -svrd' output, but I guess we should just wait and see.
> >>
> >> FWIW (I don't have all packages installed), mutt is the only package I have
> >> installed for which cygcheck -c falsely reports a problem.
> >>
> >> $ cygcheck -c | grep -v OK
> >> Cygwin Package Information
> >> Package                        Version                  Status
> >> mutt                           1.5.20-1                 Incomplete
> > 
> > Do you happen to know why?
> 
> You can read my ill-informed speculation about this matter at [1] :-)
> 
> [1] http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin-apps/2010-11/msg00065.html

Uh, ok.  Thanks for the pointer.

> >> Would a patch to http://cygwin.com/setup.html be welcome recommending that:
> >> (a) if a package installs files which a user is expected to customize, don't
> >> trample over those customizations when the package is upgraded/reinstalled
> > 
> > Isn't that what /etc/defaults and /etc/postinstall is for, basically?
> > I'm not sure I understand what you're proposing.  At which point should
> > setup warn and how is it supposed to know that a file is a
> > user-customizable one?  In theory, that's all in the responsibility
> > of the package.
> 
> Sorry, that URL isn't very helpfully named.  I'm not proposing to change
> setup.exe, I'm just suggesting adding some text to the 'Cygwin Package
> Contributor's Guide' web page, recommending those things. (I only became aware
> of the existence of /etc/defaults by looking at what other packages do, I
> can't see it mentioned on that page)

Ouch.  Sorry about that.  Yes, sure, it would surely be welcome
to see progress in the docs, too.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]