X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 00:45:33 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Installing new versions of vim doesn't uninstall old versions Message-ID: <20101112054532.GA25455@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <0C33B811BB93B3469F549ADBFA84414718BC77B4B2 AT NALASEXMB08 DOT na DOT qualcomm DOT com> <4CDC342B DOT 7010308 AT cygwin DOT com> <4CDC3CB5 DOT 4080300 AT cygwin DOT com> <20101111202901 DOT GB26142 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <4CDC5D8E DOT 7040107 AT cygwin DOT com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4CDC5D8E.7040107@cygwin.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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 Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 04:18:06PM -0500, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote: >On 11/11/2010 3:29 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 01:57:57PM -0500, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote: >>> On 11/11/2010 1:45 PM, Ren?? Berber wrote: >>>> On 11/11/2010 12:21 PM, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 11/11/2010 1:07 PM, Harrington, John wrote: >>>>>> I recently had a problem with vim that was the result of my unwittingly >>>>>> having two previous versions of vim in my /usr/bin. Is it normal for the >>>>>> cygwin installer not to delete or clobber the previous versions? I'm not >>>>>> sure what I did wrong, if anything, in updating my cygwin installation. >>>>> >>>>> Probably just a local glitch. We haven't seen other reports of this, >>>>> though >>>>> that could just mean that no one else has noticed. >>>> >>>> Actually there are many reports, its not just vim, similar reports have >>>> been made about ssh, and checking for un-installed updates showed other >>>> cases. >>>> >>>> setup.exe just leaves.exe.new (or .dll.new) and the change >>>> never happens. >>>> >>>> It may have been one of the old versions of setup, I don't know, some >>>> upgrades do happen correctly when an old one is still there, and left there. >>> >>> Yeah, maybe that explains this one too. If John was using 'vim.exe' when he >>> did an update, then this could be the result. But there is no vim-specific >>> issue here. >> >> And, of course, if anyone can provide a clearly-failing test case we'll fix >> the problem in setup.exe. > >But this would make any existing work-arounds obsolete. I think we need to >consider issues of backward bug compatibility before we blindly go fixing >'setup.exe'. ;-) Sorry. You're right. You're very wise. You should start blog. cgf -- 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