This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Fixing packages which rely on obsolete packages
- From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 15:49:19 +0200
- Subject: Re: Fixing packages which rely on obsolete packages
- References: <20130622204921 dot GA2803 at ednor dot casa dot cgf dot cx> <20130622211341 dot GA3271 at ednor dot casa dot cgf dot cx> <20130624081429 dot GF31340 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <20130624090424 dot GA20822 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <20130624124004 dot GA4810 at ednor dot casa dot cgf dot cx>
- Reply-to: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
On Jun 24 08:40, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:04:24AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Jun 24 10:14, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> On Jun 22 17:13, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> > On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 04:49:21PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> > >I'm refreshing the procedure for updating setup.ini on sourceware as
> >> > >part of moving 64-bit Cygwin out of beta and I came across this:
> >> > >[...]
> >> > Here's a similar list for 64-bit packages. Apparently genini's error
> >> > checking leaves something to be desired. Obviously some of these are
> >> > not obsolete.
> >> Does that mean upset is already running all the time for 64 bit, or was
> >> that only a test. I'm asking because I'd like to know if we still have
> >> to use GEN-sware after upload or not for the time being.
> >Scratch that question. Newly popping up md5.sum files are a rather
> >good indication.
> I don't know what you're inferring from md5.sum's but if I regenerated a
> new setup64.ini, it was entirely by accident.
Well, I wrongly inferred from the existence of a new md5.sum file that
upset is running. I should have looked at the date of setup64.ini
itself instead. I just ran GEN-sware to update setup64.ini.
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com