Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Authentication-Warning: slinky.cs.nyu.edu: pechtcha owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 12:37:52 -0500 (EST)
From: Igor Pechtchanski <pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
To: Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke AT gnu DOT org>
cc: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: bug with setup.exe: saw tetex-beta even though I did not select
  prev
In-Reply-To: <873ckzzfys.fsf@peder.flower>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0304031227120.21921-100000@slinky.cs.nyu.edu>
Importance: Normal
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:

> Robert Collins <rbcollins AT cygwin DOT com> writes:
>
> > Thi is by design. We have a single namespace for all packages, even if
> > they don't have [curr] elements. In fact prev only elements get
> > promoted to curr.
>
> Ah, I didn't know that.  That's unfortunate, in this case.  The old
> tetex-beta and texmf* packages were removed from the archive.  Dummy
> `upgrade-helper' packages with newer versions were added, that depend
> on the new tetex packages.
>
> > You should still have recieved consistent packages, what didn't get
> > installed?
>
> Probably the texmf tree.  Tetex consists of 7 packages.  The fact
> obsolete packages (named tetex-beta and texmf*) are also listed, may
> add to the confusion; the user probably sees 11 tex-related packages.
>
> >From the [curr] release, to get a working tex installation, you need
> tetex-bin, and one of tetex-tiny or tetex-base.  You can do that by
> selecting one of tetex, tetex-tiny, or tetex-base.  If you select
> tetex-bin, you only get the tex binaries, so that you may combine that
> with an already installed texmf tree (read: miktex/texlive).
>
> The upgrade-helpers have been around for over a year.  Maybe we should
> simply remove them?
>
> Jan.

Jan,

Could you require that the older packages be uninstalled before installing
the newer tetex-base and tetex-bin?  How many people are likely to still
be keeping (and actively using) the older releases of tetex-beta from
(more than) a year ago?  And how many of those are likely to want to
upgrade now?

You could also use a separate script to check for the existence of the
older packages that were to be replaced by the upgrade helpers and perform
the necessary fixups...  At a guess, the only fixups needed are a)
deleting the files that were in the older packages and aren't in the newer
ones (are there any?) and b) fixing /etc/setup/installed.db to reflect the
fact that the older packages aren't installed anymore.

I realize that mucking with /etc/setup/installed.db outside of setup.exe
is dangerous and undesirable.  It's probably better to just use the above
script to check that the older packages were in fact uninstalled.
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_		pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		igor AT watson DOT ibm DOT com
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		Igor Pechtchanski
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty.
  -- Leto II


--
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/