On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 06:07:32PM +0200, David Balazic wrote: > > Cycling through the versions is a dangerous thing these days - you should > > only > Is there any other way to get from some version selection back to "Skip" ? > If it is dangerous, then it should be disabled or accompanied with a > warning. Nope - but you usually don't want to do that :) - you only want to do that if what you have is working..
> > do it if you know what you're doing. The version Setup proposes is the one > > you > > should normally use, because it's the one the maintainer wants you to use. > > The > > maintainer is usually right about what you should use.. > There was no note saying that the maintainer prefers one version over > another. > They all were offered to choose from. Of course, but the one proposed by default by Setup is the one the maintainer prefers.. otherwise, Setup would propose something else.. > > > > You used Setup to install, didn't you? > > > yes. > > > > Use cygcheck to get the version of less, then :) > > > I llearned something new. > > > rpm would catch the incompatibility though :-) > > versioned dependencies in Setup are a work-in-progress *and* require the > > maintainers to put them in the setup.hint files. Neither is magic. > > > > IIRC, rpm doesn't use any wizzardry either: versioned dependencies are the > > maintainer's job. > > > > As for the state of progress on versioned dependencies in Setup (before > > you > > ask) IIRC it needs testing more than anything else - but one of the Setup > > people will surely correct me if I'm wrong.. > > > Well I guess I just tested it :-) Nope, you didn't, unless you added the versioned dependency to setup.hint, regenerated setup.ini, etc. cgf asked this thread to stop - let's do that :) rlc -- Beam me up, Scotty! It ate my phaser! -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
