On Jan 10 12:52, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 01:51:02PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >On Jan 5 19:50, Jon TURNEY wrote: > >> > >> Currently, for cygcheck -s implies -d. This seems rather unhelpful. > >> > >> I'm afraid I've lost the thread which inspired this, but in it the reporter > >> provided cygcheck -svr output as requested, but this did not help diagnose > >> what ultimately turned out to be the problem, that a DLL was actually an > >> older > >> version (presumably due to replace-in-use problems) > >> > >> Attached a patch to modify cygcheck so -s no longer implies -d (although -d > >> can still be used). > >> > > > >> > >> 2011-01-05 Jon TURNEY > >> > >> * cygcheck.cc (main): don't imply -d from -s option to cygcheck > > > >Looks good to me. Applied. > > Sorry that I didn't reply to this. I wasn't 100% convinced that this > was a good idea since some of the packages show up as having problems > when they are ok. I was wondering if that would end up generating more > (understandably) confused mailing list traffic but I guess, in the end, > it probably is better to check the validity of the packages for the > prescribed error reporting technique.
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. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
