This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: 1.7.20: cygicons-0.dll has gone missing
- From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 10:38:46 -0400
- Subject: Re: 1.7.20: cygicons-0.dll has gone missing
- References: <6CF2FC1279D0844C9357664DC5A08BA20D913A at MLBXV06 dot nih dot gov> <0D835E9B9CD07F40A48423F80D3B5A7021D8C894 at USA7109MB022 dot na dot xerox dot net> <51CC3936 dot 5060302 at gmail dot com> <257023591 dot 20130628141617 at mtu-net dot ru> <51CD9C39 dot 8000907 at cwilson dot fastmail dot fm>
- Reply-to: cygwin at cygwin dot com
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:22:49AM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>On 6/28/2013 6:16 AM, Andrey Repin wrote:
>>>>> The cygutils package was recently split into cygutils-extra and
>>>>> cygutils-x11. Install cygutils-extra.
>>>> Doesn't this suggest that cygicons-0.dll should be included
>>>> in the base cygwin package?
>>> base does not needs icons, so in IMHO no.
>> That's a bit flawed line, IMO.
>> Default install should put user's system in a consistent working order.
>> Missing icons is not something I would call "consistent".
>What part of a default install  *requires* icons from cygicon-0.dll?
> Now, if you're talking about updating an existing cygwin installation
>via setup.exe [with no special package selection], then yeah -- this is
>a *known* breakage. But it's better than the previous *known issue*
>where a default "Base" install  would pull in python and bits of X11.
> THAT is what this packaging change was intended to fix, and because we
>did so deliberately in order to break requires: dependencies, we
>couldn't very well avoid the problem you see by adding those same
>requires: dependencies right back.
>Summary: READ the cygwin-announce list. Always. KNOW what you're doing
>when you upgrade. AND, if you didn't do that...when you see an error
>due to a "routine upgrade"...go back and DO read that list.
> And by "default install" I mean "new installation of cygwin, using
>setup.exe, on a virgin system that has never before had cygwin
>installed", where NO special package selection is made. E.g. a "Base"
>And really, missing icons doesn't break a darn thing. It just makes
>things look less pretty, temporarily, until you manually install the
What he said.
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple