On Sat, 2001-11-03 at 05:18, Pavel Tsekov wrote: > Fergus wrote: > > > > Robert, >ou fill CURR cell with this element: > > Cycle through PREV, CURR and TEST to look for holes > Loop 1: PREV's version field is empty, "cmp" is 0 we set the gap to > PREV > Loop 2: CURR's version field is empty, "cmp" is 0 we set the gap to > CURR > Loop 3: TEST's version is not zero > Test if TEST's version is equal to the package we a currently > running > snap2() for. It's not - its greater. So we've found a hole > (CURR) > and set it to the older package. > Leave loop
Does this imply that the older file is explicitly marked as TEST somewhere? As for that algo, yes it sounds buggy to me. I think the solution should be that if a package has no explicit trust (we have to guess at prev/curr/test) and it's greater than the version in TEST and its a locally scanned file, we just ignore it. That or replace the current TEST item with the new greater versioned one. There is a longer discussion we can have, about package versions, sequence holes and trust levels, but I need to assemble some thoughts first. Rob -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
