Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Message-ID: <3AB13098.3DE03E20@ece.gatech.edu> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 16:14:00 -0500 From: Charles Wilson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.7 sun4u) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Subject: Re: setup.exe busted. Please fix? References: <984686756 DOT 19199 DOT ezmlm AT sources DOT redhat DOT com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Wait. I'm confused. latest/gcc contains source tarballs too. Is it *setup* that's broken, or am I supposed to change something in the contrib/ncftp/ directory? gcc-2.95.2-5-src.tar.gz gcc-2.95.2-5.tar.gz gcc-2.95.2-6-src.tar.gz gcc-2.95.2-6.tar.gz gcc-2.95.2-9-src.tar.gz gcc-2.95.2-9.tar.gz --Chuck ncftp contributor/maintainer > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: setup.exe busted. Please fix? > Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 14:10:29 -0500 > From: Christopher Faylor > Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com > To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com > > I just built setup.exe and tried running it in a directory which > contained both source and binary tarballs. The "Select packages > to install" part of the installation shows "upgrades" from things > like: > > 3.0.2-2 3.0.2-2-src ncftp > > The contrib/ncftp directory contains both the source and binary > tar balls. > > Could someone fix this, please? > > cgf > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: Re: setup.exe busted. Please fix? > Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 15:05:59 EST > From: Brian Keener > To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com > > Christopher Faylor wrote: > > 3.0.2-2 3.0.2-2-src ncftp > > > > The contrib/ncftp directory contains both the source and binary > > tar balls. > > > > Could someone fix this, please? > > Have you noticed this behavior before or do you think this is something > new - not that it diminishes the fact it needs fixing - really just > curious. From what I recollect though - I started to say it had probably > been there but it just hit me (big lightbulb) - this is probably a direct > result of the previous change I submitted. :-( > > Sorry - I'll take a look at it ASAP. > > Do all source tarballs end in the -src convention or should we make it a > convention??