X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 01:04:22 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: [1.7] packaging problem? Both /usr/bin/ and /usr/lib/ are non-empty Message-ID: <20090504050422.GA4733@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <49FE746E DOT 2080409 AT bonhard DOT uklinux DOT net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49FE746E.2080409@bonhard.uklinux.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 05:51:58AM +0100, Fergus wrote: > >>Just noticed that after the recent unison upgrade there exists a file > >> /usr/bin/unison > >>Also just noticed (but this must have occurred a while ago - 30/03/09 > >>maybe, the date of a TeX upgrade?) that there now exists a directory > >> /usr/lib/texmf/ > >>with deep non-empty subdirectory structure. Is it the case for [1.7] > >>that both /usr/bin/ and /usr/lib/ should be empty as for [1.5]? > >> > >>Possibly the texmf/ packaging issue has been corrected in subsequent > >>upgrades and so /usr/lib/texmf/ can be deleted without compromising > >>functionality; but I think the appearance of /usr/bin/unison is very > >>new. > > >How about humoring our need for details by providing cygcheck output > >as mentioned at http://cygwin.com/problems.html ? > > Sorry. Attached. For the future: there's no need to bzip the attachment. That makes it harder to read. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/