[PATCH] cygcheck -s should not imply -d
Thu Jan 13 12:34:00 GMT 2011
On Jan 11 14:26, Jon TURNEY wrote:
> On 11/01/2011 08:10, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > I wasn't quite sure either, but while running cygcheck with Jon's patch
> > it started to make more sense. We can also change the docs to ask for
> > `cygcheck -svrd' output, but I guess we should just wait and see.
> FWIW (I don't have all packages installed), mutt is the only package I have
> installed for which cygcheck -c falsely reports a problem.
> $ cygcheck -c | grep -v OK
> Cygwin Package Information
> Package Version Status
> mutt 1.5.20-1 Incomplete
Do you happen to know why?
> Would a patch to http://cygwin.com/setup.html be welcome recommending that:
> (a) if a package installs files which a user is expected to customize, don't
> trample over those customizations when the package is upgraded/reinstalled
Isn't that what /etc/defaults and /etc/postinstall is for, basically?
I'm not sure I understand what you're proposing. At which point should
setup warn and how is it supposed to know that a file is a
user-customizable one? In theory, that's all in the responsibility
of the package.
> (b) a package should verify as correctly installed with cygcheck -c?
I don't understand this, sorry. Would you mind to rephrase and maybe
give an example what you mean?
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
More information about the Cygwin-patches