Re: [PATCH] cygcheck -s should not imply -d
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 > PackageVersion 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
Re: [PATCH] cygcheck -s should not imply -d
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 >> PackageVersion 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 >> 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) >> (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?
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 > >> PackageVersion 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
Re: [PATCH] cygcheck -s should not imply -d
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 01:33:36PM +0100, 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 >> PackageVersion Status >> mutt 1.5.20-1 Incomplete > >Do you happen to know why? I know why. It just isn't high on my list of things to fix. cgf
