This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-xfree@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin XFree86 project.
Complaint: libfontconfig-devel-2.2.2-1.tar.bz2 (and others) changed on mirrors
- From: "Shaddy Baddah" <shaddy_baddah at hotmail dot com>
- To: "Cygwin XFree" <cygwin-xfree at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 01:20:43 +1000
- Subject: Complaint: libfontconfig-devel-2.2.2-1.tar.bz2 (and others) changed on mirrors
- Reply-to: cygwin-xfree at cygwin dot com
Hi,
Whilst I am appreciative of the work that goes into making the Cygwin
packages public, when something obviously against convention is done, I feel
it is necessary to let the maintainers know that they have inconvenienced at
least one user.
I think it is safe to say that, when you publish any package file, any one
who downloads that file should be relatively assured that it is never going
to be re-published by the same name as a changed file. The naming convention
shows that the maintainers are cognizant of this, by introducing the last
hyphenated build no. for any version (e.g.
libfontconfig-devel-2.2.2-1.tar.bz2 is v2.2.2, Cygwin build 1).
However, I have run into problems with the Cygwin setup, against the latest
published setup.ini, complaining that my cached
libfontconfig-devel-2.2.2-1.tar.bz2 file is of incorrect size:
<SNIP>
INVALID PACKAGE:
file://H:\cygwin_netrelease/release/X11/fontconfig/libfontconfig-devel/libfontconfig-devel-2.2.2-1.tar.bz2 -
Size mismatch: Ini-file: 94226 != On-disk: 94205
2005/03/28 00:16:11 mbox fatal: Fatal Error: Uncaught Exception
Thread: DialogProc
Type: 9Exception
Message: Package validation failure for
file://H:\cygwin_netrelease/release/X11/fontconfig/libfontconfig-devel/libfontconfig-devel-2.2.2-1.tar.bz2
AppErrNo: 1
2005/03/28 00:30:58 Ending cygwin install
</SNIP>
I checked my tar file with an ls -l
/cygdrive/h/cygwin_netrelease/release/X11/fontconfig/libfontconfig-devel/libfontconfig-devel-2.2.2-1.tar.bz2
and tar -tjvf
/cygdrive/h/cygwin_netrelease/release/X11/fontconfig/libfontconfig-devel/libfontconfig-devel-2.2.2-1.tar.bz2
| head -1, and whilst it confirmed that the size was indeed inconsistent
with the ini file, I encountered no errors on the tar:
<SNIP>
shaddy@swing ~
$ ls -l
/cygdrive/h/cygwin_netrelease/release/X11/fontconfig/libfontconfig-devel/libfontconfig-devel-2.2.2-1.tar.bz2
-r--r--r-- 1 shaddy None 94205 Nov 7 2004
/cygdrive/h/cygwin_netrelease/release/X11/fontconfig/libfontconfig-devel/libfontconfig-devel-2.2.2-1.tar.bz2
shaddy@swing ~
$ tar -tjvf
/cygdrive/h/cygwin_netrelease/release/X11/fontconfig/libfontconfig-devel/libfontconfig-devel-2.2.2-1.tar.bz2
| head -1
drwxrwxrwx harold/None 0 2004-03-11 11:37:44 usr/lib/
shaddy@swing ~
$
</SNIP>
I checked the file on my local mirror, and indeed found that does match the
claimed ini size. I downloaded the file over the old one, and retried my
Cygwin setup. This time, I encountered no problem with the
libfontconfig-devel-2.2.2-1.tar.bz2, but now am running into the same
problem with libfreetype2-devel-2.1.5-1.tar.bz2. I am at this point now, and
will have to repeat the process... but I am not thrilled with what has
happened.
Executing the same on the downloaded version of
libfontconfig-devel-2.2.2-1.tar.bz2, I got:
<SNIP>
shaddy@swing ~
$ ls -l
/cygdrive/h/cygwin_netrelease/release/X11/fontconfig/libfontconfig-devel/libfontconfig-devel-2.2.2-1.tar.bz2
-r--r--r-- 1 shaddy None 94226 Mar 28 00:31
/cygdrive/h/cygwin_netrelease/release/X11/fontconfig/libfontconfig-devel/libfontconfig-devel-2.2.2-1.tar.bz2
shaddy@swing ~
$ tar -tjvf
/cygdrive/h/cygwin_netrelease/release/X11/fontconfig/libfontconfig-devel/libfontconfig-devel-2.2.2-1.tar.bz2
| head -1
drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2004-11-12 04:54:53 usr/
shaddy@swing ~
$
</SNIP>
So, I think it is obvious that there was a slight problem with the
ownership, and the apparent minor severity of the problem was deemed
acceptable to circumvent the convention, and overwrite the build 1 of
v2.2.1.
Obviously, this is not a disastrous problem, which I can recover from
manually (still ongoing at the time of writing. Let's see what happens when
I get past libfreetype2-devel)... but I feel it was unnecessary. In my
opinion, you should just have made a build 2.
Anyway, I hope it's food for thought. Otherwise, you have my gratitude for
the 99.9% of the work that you do with excellence.
Regards,
Shaddy