Re: Fwd: [Feature request] Setup64.exe should respect more recent packages' version

2013-06-17 Thread Ken Brown
On 6/17/2013 6:24 PM, Warren Young wrote: On 6/17/2013 13:54, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote: On 6/17/2013 3:50 PM, Vasiliy wrote: I've compiled, and installed bash 4.2.45 for x64, and made appropriate changes in the /etc directory, so, it is up on the list of the installed packages. However, it ke

Re: Fwd: [Feature request] Setup64.exe should respect more recent packages' version

2013-06-17 Thread Larry Hall (Cygwin)
On 6/17/2013 6:24 PM, Warren Young wrote: On 6/17/2013 13:54, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote: On 6/17/2013 3:50 PM, Vasiliy wrote: I've compiled, and installed bash 4.2.45 for x64, and made appropriate changes in the /etc directory, so, it is up on the list of the installed packages. However, it ke

Re: Fwd: [Feature request] Setup64.exe should respect more recent packages' version

2013-06-17 Thread Warren Young
On 6/17/2013 13:54, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote: On 6/17/2013 3:50 PM, Vasiliy wrote: I've compiled, and installed bash 4.2.45 for x64, and made appropriate changes in the /etc directory, so, it is up on the list of the installed packages. However, it keeps downgrading. You'll need to update yo

Re: Fwd: [Feature request] Setup64.exe should respect more recent packages' version

2013-06-17 Thread Larry Hall (Cygwin)
On 6/17/2013 3:50 PM, Vasiliy wrote: On 6/17/2013, Larry wrote: That is the way it works for non-test packages. I'm not sure what mirror you're using but on mirror.mcs.anl.gov, bash 4.1.11 is the only version available for x64. ~~~ No, it does not. I've compiled, and installed bash 4.2.45 fo

Re: Fwd: [Feature request] Setup64.exe should respect more recent packages' version

2013-06-17 Thread Vasiliy
On 6/17/2013, Larry wrote: That is the way it works for non-test packages. I'm not sure what mirror you're using but on mirror.mcs.anl.gov, bash 4.1.11 is the only version available for x64. ~~~ No, it does not. I've compiled, and installed bash 4.2.45 for x64, and made appropriate changes in

Re: Fwd: [Feature request] Setup64.exe should respect more recent packages' version

2013-06-17 Thread marco atzeri
Il 6/17/2013 9:27 PM, Vasiliy ha scritto: Ok, I understand, and, yes, it's also about setup.exe. That would be true if the package was marked as 'a test package', aka those marked '[test]' in setup.ini, but what if they were not? From my example bash 4.2 is not marked as [test] (I've changed 'ins

Re: Fwd: [Feature request] Setup64.exe should respect more recent packages' version

2013-06-17 Thread Larry Hall (Cygwin)
Please, no . On 6/17/2013 3:27 PM, Vasiliy wrote: Ok, I understand, and, yes, it's also about setup.exe. That would be true if the package was marked as 'a test package', aka those marked '[test]' in setup.ini, but what if they were not? From my example bash 4.2

Fwd: [Feature request] Setup64.exe should respect more recent packages' version

2013-06-17 Thread Vasiliy
Ok, I understand, and, yes, it's also about setup.exe. That would be true if the package was marked as 'a test package', aka those marked '[test]' in setup.ini, but what if they were not? From my example bash 4.2 is not marked as [test] (I've changed 'installed.db' file accordingly), yet setup(64)