Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender:	cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Date:	Mon, 29 Apr 2002 11:27:48 -0400
From:	Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To:	cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: RFC: setup.ini change
Message-ID:	<20020429152748.GA7031@redhat.com>
Reply-To:	cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<01c001c1ef81$bb425230$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks>
Mime-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<01c001c1ef81$bb425230$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.3.23.1i

Given the way that md5 checksums are generated on sourceware currently,
this would be a problem.  The checksums are generated asynchronously
with the creation of setup.ini.

I would prefer the three column version of install/source, though.
Slightly less work for me.

cgf

On Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 11:28:20PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
>I'd like to change this:
>install: release/bash/bash-20000901.tar.bz2 276403
>source:  release/bash/bash-20000901-src.tar.bz2 1892899
>
>to
>
>install: release/bash/bash-20000901.tar.bz2 276403
>158044165a04791968a7e7fc8daaef9e
>source:  release/bash/bash-20000901-src.tar.bz2 1892899
>158044165a04791968a7e7fc8daaef9f
>
>or
>
>install: release/bash/bash-20000901.tar.bz2 276403
>install-md5: 158044165a04791968a7e7fc8daaef9e
>source:  release/bash/bash-20000901-src.tar.bz2 1892899
>source-md5: 158044165a04791968a7e7fc8daaef9f
>
>I don't care which we choose. My preference is the first one - it will
>keep the files smaller. Either will cause setup.exe to barf when first
>introduced. Likewise for third party parsers that are ... pedantic.
>
>To help deal with this I suggest the following approach:
>with the new version I want to release, we include the new format ini
>parser, but do nothing with the data. Then we can introduce features to
>use it at our leisure.
>
>Any preference folk?
>
>Rob

- Raw text -