> -Original Message-
> From: Michael A Chase [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 2:28 AM
> "Download from Internet" shouldn't care in the least whether
> there is a Cygwin installation present or not. It should
> only care about the files in the local director
> > First, "Download from Internet".
That should have read First, "Install from Internet" The following
paragraph(s) should then make more sense.
> > Assuming there's already a cygwin installation present, setup should
> > examine all packages installed and compare their versions with the
> > l
On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 13:55:41 +0100 Cliff Hones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Robert Collins wrote:
> > So you are suggesting that in download mode it should not offer to
> > upgrade any installed packages by default? Or that it should only offer
> > upgrades for installed packages without cached f
On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 21:36:46 +1000 Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > From: Cliff Hones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 9:14 PM
>
> > The problem seems to be that setup doesn't set these
> > already-present packages to 'keep' or 'skip' by default, and
Robert Collins wrote:
> So you are suggesting that in download mode it should not offer to
> upgrade any installed packages by default? Or that it should only offer
> upgrades for installed packages without cached files?
The latter (approx) . I view it as offering downloads - not upgrades -
in d
> -Original Message-
> From: Cliff Hones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 9:14 PM
> The problem seems to be that setup doesn't set these
> already-present packages to 'keep' or 'skip' by default, and
> there's no way for the user to find out which packages a
From: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 11:29 AM
> There is one additional possibility that has
> occurred to me. Setup is *designed* to redownload files in download-only
> mode. This is not my preference, but was argued over waay back. So in
> download mode, *any*
> -Original Message-
> From: Cliff Hones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 7:16 PM
> I was pleasantly
> surprised how easy this was (once I realised the setup200202
> branch was needed), and after adding some diagnostics have so
> far found that the check_fo
Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> ...
> Thanks for the detail Cliff. As a point of interest: both latest and
> contrib are obsolete - and I expect setup.exe to redownload the entire
> content of mirror sites. This is due to a restructuring done on
> sources.redhat.com to put everythign i
On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 09:19:01 +1000 Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Cliff Hones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 11:55 PM
> The download process iterates over all known packages, and calls
> download_one for the binar
> -Original Message-
> From: Cliff Hones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 11:55 PM
> It seems then that the buggy behaviour is present on W9X NT and W2K
but not XP. Since the majority of Cygwin users do not
> use XP (yet) I'd suggest that it would be a good i
Robert,
It seems then that the buggy behaviour is present on W9X NT and
W2K but not XP. Since the majority of Cygwin users do not use XP
(yet) I'd suggest that it would be a good idea for some setup.exe
developers to have access to a variety of systems to help avoid
and debug this sort of proble
> -Original Message-
> From: Gerrit P. Haase [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 6:20 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24
>
>
> Hallo Robert,
>
> > And I *stil* cannot reproduce it. Setup
Hallo Robert,
> And I *stil* cannot reproduce it. Setup detects the local files *every
> single time*.
what system are you on?
I have problems on Win2000 and WinNT4.
Say, you *install* everything you need from the release using the 'current'
(default setting) including some packages where a 'te
> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 10:16 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 09:31:02AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
&g
On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 09:31:02AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Cliff Hones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 9:10 AM
>
>> Since noone acknowledged it was a bug I've been assuming it was a
>(rather strange to me) design feature
On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 04:17:01PM -0700, Michael A Chase wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 18:01:34 -0400 Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>However, if Robert indicates that this is not the desired behavior then
>>maybe someone else (*cough*, Michael, *cough*) might have time to look
>>in
> -Original Message-
> From: Cliff Hones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 9:10 AM
> Since noone acknowledged it was a bug I've been assuming it was a
(rather strange to me) design feature.
Actually, I acknowledged it as a bug, but one I couldn't repeat until
> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 8:02 AM
> >> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 18:41:04 +0100 Alan Hourihane
> >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think this is because you
> >>haven't installed the packages yet. I think setup
> From: Randall R Schulz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 9:43 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24
>
>
> Chris,
>
> At 12:38 2002-04-19, you wrote:
> >On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 11:28:19AM -0700, Randal
I've noticed similar behaviour. I always use "Download from Internet" to
get a local disk image on a zip disk, which I can then use to update cygwin
on several machines. However I've sometimes got things out of sync and
can't download local copies of the package depending on what computer I'm
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 18:01:34 -0400 Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 08:33:02PM +0100, Alan Hourihane wrote:
> >setup.exe should know what it's downloaded and not installed.
>
> Yep. I thought I added code to do that in the previous version but
> it's been
Christopher Faylor wrote on Friday, April 19, 2002 8:38 PM:
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 11:28:19AM -0700, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> >I think to generalize, the current Setup.exe offers to download based on
> >which packages are currently installed, not on which packages are present
> >in the loca
"Christopher Faylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 11:28:19AM -0700, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> >I think to generalize, the current Setup.exe offers to download based on
> >which packages are currently installed, not on w
On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 08:33:02PM +0100, Alan Hourihane wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 11:22:08AM -0700, Michael A Chase wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 18:41:04 +0100 Alan Hourihane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>I think this is because you haven't installed the packages yet. I
>>think setup.exe
> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 5:38 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Bug in setup.exe 2.194.2.24
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 11:28:19AM -0700, Randall R Schulz wrote:
>
Chris,
At 12:38 2002-04-19, you wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 11:28:19AM -0700, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> >I think to generalize, the current Setup.exe offers to download based on
> >which packages are currently installed, not on which packages are present
> >in the local download area(s).
>
>I
On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 11:28:19AM -0700, Randall R Schulz wrote:
>I think to generalize, the current Setup.exe offers to download based on
>which packages are currently installed, not on which packages are present
>in the local download area(s).
I hate to say it but that sounds like a bug to m
On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 11:22:08AM -0700, Michael A Chase wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 18:41:04 +0100 Alan Hourihane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I'm using 2.194.2.24 and when I go through "Download from Internet"
> > and download the "new" components. It downloads them fine.
> >
> > Next, I
Alan,
I was about to send in a similar report yesterday evening.
I think to generalize, the current Setup.exe offers to download based on
which packages are currently installed, not on which packages are present
in the local download area(s).
I say this because even though I have a full set o
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 18:41:04 +0100 Alan Hourihane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm using 2.194.2.24 and when I go through "Download from Internet"
> and download the "new" components. It downloads them fine.
>
> Next, I re-run setup.exe and I go through "Download from Internet" again,
> (but thi
Hi,
I'm wondering if I've found a bug in setup.exe.
I'm using 2.194.2.24 and when I go through "Download from Internet"
and download the "new" components. It downloads them fine.
Next, I re-run setup.exe and I go through "Download from Internet" again,
(but this was by accident) and it says tha
32 matches
Mail list logo
