On Sun, Nov 11, 2001 at 04:09:47PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Christopher Faylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >There are some things I believe we should be able to do with >> >/etc/setup... >> >1) Detect cross-package conflicts. Say foo and bar both contain >> >/usr/bin/ld.exe. >> >2) The lst files are currently gz' files, I think it would be good to >> >change to using bz2 in the future. >> > >> >Doing the 1st one really requires a more database orientated >approach -- >> >long term of course. >> >> Right. But in the meantime we have a huge user base who can't easily >> figure out what packages they have installed. > >Perhaps a new view in setup - categories/full/partial/installed ?
Yes. That would be nice. >> Absolutely. I really hate this but I was doing it the wrong way for 1.3.5. >> I am optimistically thinking that there won't be a new cygwin release for >> a while after that and I wanted to get something that works into 1.3.5. > >Makes sense. Hopefully the daemon will go in immedaitely post 1.3.5, and >that will need a little ironing out I'm sure. > >> I also didn't want to be pulling things apart while you are actively >working >> on this but maybe this is an important enough goal that it is worth >doing >> ASAP. > >As long as you're happy to rework cygcheck twice :]. Yep. The reworking will just be pulling out chunks of code. >> 1) setup.exe is currently a windows app so it can't write >> to the >console. > >That's a small problem :}. Place your bets now. Will we restart the "it must be possible" discussion? >> 2) Cygcheck should really be the one stop place for all debugging >> output so, at the very least, cygcheck would have to call a >> 'dump capable' setup.exe to get its output but, that wouldn't >> be useful for debugging cases where setup.exe wasn't available. > >I think cygcheck should have the functionality built in statically, >just the source shouldn't be split. Yep. That's why I mentioned this. As it is now, cygcheck was actually showing its age since some parts of its registry parsing weren't up-to-date with cygwin. I've fixed that but (Captain Kirk voice): For. How. Long? Ideally, we should be actually able to craft a library that even the Cygwin DLL can use as long as the library doesn't use any MSVCRT specific code. Hmm. I like this idea better all of the time. I wonder how much of the cygwin code can be pulled into a reusable library. Although, I just told you not to use cygwin code in setup.exe, didn't I, Robert? Well... This is different because, er, um. Gee, look at the time. Gotta go. cgf
