On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 08:09:14PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On Jul 16 11:04, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 11:37:17AM +0100, Jon TURNEY wrote: >> >On 16/07/2013 03:08, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> >> 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? >> > >> >In x86, readline is the devel package, and so has source and binary tar >> >files. >> > >> >In x86_64, the packaging is different and a libreadline-devel package has >> >been >> >added, so readline is now source only, but has things which depend on it >> >(e.g. >> >gawk, gdb, python) becuase they haven't been updated for this change. >> > >> >It seems setup reports trying to install a package for which it knows no >> >versions with the helpful message "Incomplete download" :-) >> >> It seems like these issues are being fixed but should we modify setup's >> behavior to be less "helpful"? >> >> Hmm. I wonder if upset could also report on these problems as well. > >In upset it be more useful, imho, because we get immediate warning >when the problem occurs.
I can do that but was there a setup regression here? It sounded like the old setup64.exe doesn't complain about these issues. Or does it complain now with the lastest packages? cgf