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? > 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. > (b) a package should verify as correctly installed with cygcheck -c? I don't understand this, sorry. Would you mind to rephrase and maybe give an example what you mean? Thanks, Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
