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
