X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
X-Cloudmark-SP-Filtered: true
X-Cloudmark-SP-Result: v=1.0 c=1 a=kCKDY91tEBMc+hi4YtGk8Q==:17 a=hV0Kfjp7E7L1Lv979IIA:9  a=rTKrLvXV3PQANnsDAN1q_EUx4DoA:4 a=_CoY6nU7cm-jp_Pi:21 a=N_1BeBk2_XUgbBYn:21
Message-ID: <4B4A4682.9040002@monai.ca>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 13:28:34 -0800
From: Steven Monai <steve+cygwin AT monai DOT ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091204 Thunderbird/3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Update problems
References: <web-28750510 AT remus DOT csulb DOT edu>  <4B46A4C3 DOT 2000803 AT cygwin DOT com>  <4B47986F DOT 2020609 AT t-online DOT de>  <4B47B3FA DOT 1010101 AT cygwin DOT com>  <4B47DBAE DOT 5000901 AT monai DOT ca>  <20100109100941 DOT GL23992 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>  <4B4A1032 DOT 9030201 AT monai DOT ca> <20100110192728 DOT GC24855 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <4B4A3918 DOT 4020005 AT byu DOT net>
In-Reply-To: <4B4A3918.4020005@byu.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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

On 2010/01/10 12:31 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> According to Christopher Faylor on 1/10/2010 12:27 PM:
>> No one thinks its a good idea.
> 
> And here's one reason why.  Newer versions of cygwin1.dll introduce new
> entry points.  But suppose you are updating cygwin1.dll and bash at the
> same time.  If the new bash depends on one of those new entry points, but
> the old cygwin1.dll is still in operation, then the replace-on-reboot
> won't save the fact that the new bash won't work until the reboot.

Okay, that is definitely a problem with my scenario. We don't want to
force an otherwise needless reboot every time cygwin1.dll is updated.

But what you describe is also a problem for setup.exe right now. To
reuse your example, if I run setup.exe to upgrade bash but I don't
upgrade cygwin1.dll at the same time (for whatever reason), then the new
bash won't work. More generally, if I upgrade package 'foo' but not
package 'bar'---and 'foo' uses new features of the new 'bar'---then
'foo' will not work.

Other package management systems deal with this problem by including
versioning in the package dependency specification. Thus one could, for
example, specify that 'foo' version 1.1 depends on 'bar' version >= 2.4.
So if I upgrade 'foo' to version 1.1, an upgrade to 'bar' is forced if
the currently installed 'bar' has version < 2.4.

> Really, it is better to stop ALL things cygwin, do the upgrade, and not
> worry about those interactions.

I would say it is certainly EASIER to do it that way, not necessarily
that it is better. Thank you for your time.

-SM
--

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple