This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Jun 11 12:06, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Jun 10 22:50, Achim Gratz wrote: > > Corinna Vinschen writes: > > >> > Either way, please go ahead and apply your patch. While you're at it, > > > > Done. > > > > >> > would you mind to change YY_READ_BUF_SIZE as above and raise the buffer > > >> > size in io_stream::copy to 64K as well? > > >> > > >> Yes, but I'll probably put each of those in a separate commit. > > > > > > Sure, thank you. > > > > I'll do that later since I have to re-shuffle some local commits and > > then test everything again first. > > > > > > If you're so inclined you could perhaps have a look at the next commit > > on my local branch: > > > > http://repo.or.cz/w/cygwin-setup/local.git/commitdiff/5b4e8b928c7fe16b2813b5f1bdbf27b49c8e0d57 > > > > This implements xz compressed setup.xz files over network in addition to > > setup.bz2. The difference between bz2 and xz is pretty consistently > > about 10% smaller files for xz, but the main envisioned advantage some > > time down the road (years, most likely) would be to get rid of the > > additional compression libraries in setup once everything is compressed > > with xz. The best compression setting with the setup files I have > > looked at is "-6e". I've also checked that setup can deal correctly > > with different checksums for the xz blocks (standard is crc64, but > > sha256 works). > > Ok, I took a look. Basically it looks fine, but it seems there's a bug > in terms of sig_fail. > > You're giving sig_fail as argument to fetch_remote_ini. Inside > fetch_remote_ini, you're setting sig_fail, but you never test it. > However, since sig_fail has been given to fetch_remote_ini by value, > not by reference, the caller will never see the change to sig_fail. > So in the expression > > if (!ini_file && !sig_fail) > > sig_fail is always false. > > I'm also wondering of the new logic at this point. If you fix the above > call by value of sig_fail, the new logic will only continue if there > was no sig test fail. It will not continue if there was no ini file, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Doh. Make that "if there was a signature test fail" > as it did before. Why? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
Attachment:
pgpeTFe1mgSfn.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |