Re: Move zlib up one level?

[Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>]

On Sun, Nov 11, 2001 at 04:09:47PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf@redhat.com>
>> >There are some things I believe we should be able to do with
>> >/etc/setup...
>> >1) Detect cross-package conflicts. Say foo and bar both contain
>> >/usr/bin/ld.exe.
>> >2) The lst files are currently gz' files, I think it would be good to
>> >change to using bz2 in the future.
>> >
>> >Doing the 1st one really requires a more database orientated
>approach --
>> >long term of course.
>>
>> Right.  But in the meantime we have a huge user base who can't easily
>> figure out what packages they have installed.
>
>Perhaps a new view in setup - categories/full/partial/installed ?

Yes.  That would be nice.

>> Absolutely.  I really hate this but I was doing it the wrong way for 1.3.5.
>> I am optimistically thinking that there won't be a new cygwin release for
>> a while after that and I wanted to get something that works into 1.3.5.
>
>Makes sense. Hopefully the daemon will go in immedaitely post 1.3.5, and
>that will need a little ironing out I'm sure.
>
>> I also didn't want to be pulling things apart while you are actively
>working
>> on this but maybe this is an important enough goal that it is worth
>doing
>> ASAP.
>
>As long as you're happy to rework cygcheck twice :].

Yep.  The reworking will just be pulling out chunks of code.

>> 1) setup.exe is currently a windows app so it can't write
>>    to the >console.
>
>That's a small problem :}.

Place your bets now.  Will we restart the "it must be possible"
discussion?

>> 2) Cygcheck should really be the one stop place for all debugging
>>    output so, at the very least, cygcheck would have to call a
>>    'dump capable' setup.exe to get its output but, that wouldn't
>>    be useful for debugging cases where setup.exe wasn't available.
>
>I think cygcheck should have the functionality built in statically,
>just the source shouldn't be split.

Yep.  That's why I mentioned this.

As it is now, cygcheck was actually showing its age since some parts of
its registry parsing weren't up-to-date with cygwin.  I've fixed that
but (Captain Kirk voice):

For.  How.  Long?

Ideally, we should be actually able to craft a library that even the
Cygwin DLL can use as long as the library doesn't use any MSVCRT
specific code.

Hmm.  I like this idea better all of the time.  I wonder how much of
the cygwin code can be pulled into a reusable library.

Although, I just told you not to use cygwin code in setup.exe, didn't I,
Robert?

Well...  This is different because, er, um.

Gee, look at the time.  Gotta go.

cgf