On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 09:49:12PM -0400, Ken Brown wrote: >On 7/15/2013 8:20 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 01:05:53PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>> I'd appreciate it if people could try the two new setup.exe's >>> installed at http://cygwin.com/ >>> >>> http://cygwin.com/setup-x86.exe for 32-bit >>> http://cygwin.com/setup-x86_64.exe for 64-bit >>> >>> The setup.ini's for both are updated using a similar schedule to the >>> "official and soon to be deleted" version which uses >>> /var/ftp/pub/cygwin/release. The -x86* versions of these programs >>> use the release directories from the arch specific locations. >>> >>> The setup.ini's used by these two new programs are not >>> backwards-compatible with old setup.exe. >> >> Just to be clear, these new setup.exe's should not do anything untoward >> to your existing installation. They should *just work*. > >setup-x86_64.exe behaves differently from setup64.exe with respect to >source-only packages. (I don't know which one is "right".) This is >showing up for me because the 64-bit versions of gcc and readline are >source-only packages that are (incorrectly?) required by other packages. > setup64.exe seems to ignore these requirements, whereas >setup-x86_64.exe wants to install the packages but then reports >"Incomplete download".
Thanks for trying this. I doubt that is anything that I introduced. Do you see the same behavior from setup-x86.exe? cgf