Fwd: calm: cygwin package upload report from sourceware.org for Marco Atzeri

Marco Atzeri marco.atzeri@gmail.com
Sat Jul 30 13:16:00 GMT 2016

On 30/07/2016 13:47, Jon Turney wrote:
> On 30/07/2016 05:45, Marco Atzeri wrote:
>> I have some problem to remove the obsolete versions
>> The usual trick before was to remove all
>> x86/release/ImageMagick/-ImageMagick-
>> x86/release/ImageMagick/libMagickC++6_5/-libMagickC++6_5-
>> x86/release/ImageMagick/libMagickC++6_5/-setup.hint
>> x86_64/release/ImageMagick/-ImageMagick-
>> x86_64/release/ImageMagick/libMagickC++6_5/-libMagickC++6_5-
>> x86_64/release/ImageMagick/libMagickC++6_5/-setup.hint
>> x86_64/release/ImageMagick/libMagickCore6/-libMagickCore6-
>> x86_64/release/ImageMagick/libMagickCore6/-setup.hint
>> but calm seems to have problem with it.
> Hi,
> Sorry about the inconvenience.
> The problem that calm is complaining about here is that removing the
> last version of these packages will leave the package with no versions
> (since you want to remove the package entirely).
> While historically permitted by uspet, removing a package doesn't make
> much sense, currently.
> setup doesn't do anything about installed packages which have
> disappeared from setup.ini, so the files a removed package contains will
> linger indefinitely in any existing installs (which also creates the
> possibility of pathname collisions with future packages)
> Normally, where a package has been replaced or superseded by another
> package, it is updated with an empty, obsolete version, which depends on
> it's replacement, so existing installs are updated to that.
> But that's not usually appropriate for an old soversion of a shared
> library (even though it has no users left in the distro, there may be
> 3rd party packages or local builds which depend on the old soversion),
> so it should be kept.

tried also that.

Leaving libs as they are but calm also complains
that the package "libMagickCore6" and "libMagickC++6_5" are incomplete.
So I can not update ImageMagick at all.

All the files are in the stage area now, I just avoided to put
the "!ready" tag.

> I'd appreciate your help in understanding if either of those cases
> applies to these packages, or if something else is needed here...

currently nothing on cygwin depends on


They were obsoleted ~ 1 year ago


More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list