A bug (?) in the current setup.exe 2.78.2.15

Robert Collins robert.collins@itdomain.com.au
Fri Nov 2 15:55:00 GMT 2001


On Sat, 2001-11-03 at 05:18, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
> Fergus wrote:
> > 
> > Robert,
>ou fill CURR cell with this element:
> 
> Cycle through PREV, CURR and TEST to look for holes
>   Loop 1: PREV's version field is empty, "cmp" is 0 we set the gap to
> PREV
>   Loop 2: CURR's version field is empty, "cmp" is 0 we set the gap to
> CURR
>   Loop 3: TEST's version is not zero
>            Test if TEST's version is equal to the package we a currently
> running
>            snap2() for. It's not - its greater. So we've found a hole
> (CURR) 
>            and set it to the older package.
> Leave loop

Does this imply that the older file is explicitly marked as TEST
somewhere?
As for that algo, yes it sounds buggy to me. I think the solution should
be that if a package has no explicit trust (we have to guess at
prev/curr/test) and it's greater than the version in TEST and its a
locally scanned file, we just ignore it. That or replace the current
TEST item with the new greater versioned one.

There is a longer discussion we can have, about package versions,
sequence holes and trust levels, but I need to assemble some thoughts
first.

Rob


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/



More information about the Cygwin mailing list