This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [PATCH] Do not clear the prev, curr and exp fields of packagemeta. Never.
- From: Houder <houder at xs4all dot nl>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 17:26:25 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Do not clear the prev, curr and exp fields of packagemeta. Never.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <510b310a3f4f5a19abf1349216f013b3 at xs4all dot nl> <44110727-fec0-caba-84f5-5e4908ee13dc at dronecode dot org dot uk>
On 2016-05-23 15:44, Jon Turney wrote:
This patch rectifies
- packagemeta::ScanDownloadedFiles (package_meta.cc), and
- packagemeta::trustp (package_meta.h)
Class packagemeta has "fields" prev, curr, exp and installed, which in
represent the info from setup.ini/installed.db, and should never be
therefore. _Currently_ these fields are cleared in
order to notify that the tarball for the associated field is not
This is a mistake, as it destroys relevant info (e.g. the version
To ascertain whether or not the associated tarball is available, one
Can you clarify a bit about the problem that this patch solves? And
how you tested that it fixes it?
I reported the "problem" in March, here:
- Package choosing algorithm ...
However, in a nutshell the story is as follows:
I install from "Local Directory" (i.e. not directly from a mirror;
I operate a local mirror).
At that point in time I had installed a TEST version of the cygwin pkg.
Corinna launched another TEST version of that package. After downloading
new version, I also removed the CURRENT version of that pkg (yes, nobody
that, except me).
After that, I started setup.exe again in order to install the test
the cygwin pkg, which I had downloaded.
To my surprise, the new test version was NOT offered for install ... As
not understand why, I started the thread above.
Especially when Corinna told me, that it should work, I really started
curious, and decided to study the source code of setup ...
After some effort, I found the cause of the problem.
Yes, the patch has been tested, but in order to describe what I did, I
need some more time (as it has been a while), and because I still have a
time putting it down in English (not being my native tongue).
Thank you for your interest in my patch (although it may not solve a
that is really important, it does improve the 'clarity' of the source