This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Please try new setup exe's
- From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 22:08:36 -0400
- Subject: Re: Please try new setup exe's
- References: <20130715170553 dot GA6166 at ednor dot casa dot cgf dot cx> <20130716002025 dot GA7360 at ednor dot casa dot cgf dot cx> <51E4A698 dot 7040308 at cornell dot edu>
- Reply-to: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 09:49:12PM -0400, Ken Brown wrote:
>On 7/15/2013 8:20 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 01:05:53PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>> I'd appreciate it if people could try the two new setup.exe's
>>> installed at http://cygwin.com/
>>> http://cygwin.com/setup-x86.exe for 32-bit
>>> http://cygwin.com/setup-x86_64.exe for 64-bit
>>> The setup.ini's for both are updated using a similar schedule to the
>>> "official and soon to be deleted" version which uses
>>> /var/ftp/pub/cygwin/release. The -x86* versions of these programs
>>> use the release directories from the arch specific locations.
>>> The setup.ini's used by these two new programs are not
>>> backwards-compatible with old setup.exe.
>> Just to be clear, these new setup.exe's should not do anything untoward
>> to your existing installation. They should *just work*.
>setup-x86_64.exe behaves differently from setup64.exe with respect to
>source-only packages. (I don't know which one is "right".) This is
>showing up for me because the 64-bit versions of gcc and readline are
>source-only packages that are (incorrectly?) required by other packages.
> setup64.exe seems to ignore these requirements, whereas
>setup-x86_64.exe wants to install the packages but then reports
Thanks for trying this. I doubt that is anything that I introduced.
Do you see the same behavior from setup-x86.exe?