cygwin beta packages

[Ken Brown]

On 11/10/2014 1:31 PM, Achim Gratz wrote:
>
> Two minor nits:
>
> The current beta packages contain a "." in the release number.  That dot is
> chopped off along with the anything that follows in some places during
> install in setup.exe.  A better naming scheme would use a letter there,
> so perhaps "0b8" (I know that this doesn't produce problems since I've
> been packaging snapshots for local installation that way for a long
> time).

This probably explains the strange results reported in

   https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2014-11/msg00055.html
   https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2014-11/msg00180.html

in which the base-cygwin package comes very late in the dependency 
order, and so its postinstall script gets run late.

Apparently setup.exe doesn't parse the data for the cygwin package 
correctly, and its dependencies therefore don't get taken into account 
in computing the dependency order.

You can see this by putting '#define DEBUG 1' in package_db.cc before 
building setup.exe.  The setup log then shows the order in which 
packages are visited while building the dependency order.  base-cygwin 
ought to be visited immediately after cygwin, but it is only visited 
much later (if the test version of cygwin is being installed).

I had just discovered this and was trying to figure out why, when your 
mail arrived.

Ken