Re: Please try new setup exe's

[Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>]

On Jul 16 14:18, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 08:09:14PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Jul 16 11:04, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 11:37:17AM +0100, Jon TURNEY wrote:
> >> >On 16/07/2013 03:08, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 09:49:12PM -0400, Ken Brown wrote:
> >> >>> setup-x86_64.exe behaves differently from setup64.exe with respect to 
> >> >>> source-only packages.  (I don't know which one is "right".)  This is 
> >> >>> showing up for me because the 64-bit versions of gcc and readline are 
> >> >>> source-only packages that are (incorrectly?) required by other packages. 
> >> >>>  setup64.exe seems to ignore these requirements, whereas 
> >> >>> setup-x86_64.exe wants to install the packages but then reports 
> >> >>> "Incomplete download".
> >> >> 
> >> >> Thanks for trying this.  I doubt that is anything that I introduced.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Do you see the same behavior from setup-x86.exe?
> >> >
> >> >In x86, readline is the devel package, and so has source and binary tar files.
> >> >
> >> >In x86_64, the packaging is different and a libreadline-devel package has been
> >> >added, so readline is now source only, but has things which depend on it (e.g.
> >> >gawk, gdb, python) becuase they haven't been updated for this change.
> >> >
> >> >It seems setup reports trying to install a package for which it knows no
> >> >versions with the helpful message "Incomplete download" :-)
> >> 
> >> It seems like these issues are being fixed but should we modify setup's
> >> behavior to be less "helpful"?
> >> 
> >> Hmm.  I wonder if upset could also report on these problems as well.
> >
> >In upset it be more useful, imho, because we get immediate warning
> >when the problem occurs.
> 
> I can do that but was there a setup regression here?  It sounded like
> the old setup64.exe doesn't complain about these issues.  Or does it
> complain now with the lastest packages?

The former setup64 doesn't complain, but I don't think this is a setup
problem.  Rather, it's a difference between the generated ini files.
The old setup64.ini was only generated by genini, the new by upset.

For instance, here's the gcc entry generated by genini:

  @ gcc
  sdesc: "GNU Compiler Collection"
  ldesc: "The GNU Compiler Collection includes front ends for C, C++,
  Objective-C, Fortran, Java, Ada, and Go, as well as libraries for these
  languages (libstdc++, libgcj,...)."
  category: Devel

And here's the gcc entry as generated by upset:

  @ gcc
  sdesc: "GNU Compiler Collection"
  ldesc: "The GNU Compiler Collection includes front ends for C, C++,
  Objective-C, Fortran, Java, Ada, and Go, as well as libraries for these
  languages (libstdc++, libgcj,...)."
  category: Devel
  version: 4.8.1-1
  source: x86_64/release/gcc/gcc-4.8.1-1-src.tar.bz2 87070214 eb70273d8a2a555d995b0675980fcc1c
  [prev]
  version: 4.8.0-2
  source: x86_64/release/gcc/gcc-4.8.0-2-src.tar.bz2 86977149 128658603c4daac97e62b4778c22a56d

So in one case the entry doesn't contain any package, in the other
case we have "source" entries.  With the same input, I bet setup64
behaves the same as setup-x86_64.

[...time passes, testing...]

yes, when using the new setup.ini with the old setup64.exe, the effect
is the same.


Corinna

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