This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Mismatch [1.5] [1.7]: lzip-1.8-1
- From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:34:30 -0500
- Subject: Re: Mismatch [1.5] [1.7]: lzip-1.8-1
- References: <B6294A3A47916A439EE6CCEA0BDF882A241F55D933@corvus.tcgp.dundee.ac.uk> <4B086522.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20091122031736.GC16783@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <4B08BA37.email@example.com> <4B08BB6B.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4B08C531.email@example.com> <4B117F39.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4B118157.email@example.com> <4B1187ED.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4B118EDC.email@example.com>
- Reply-to: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 01:58:04PM -0700, Eric Blake wrote:
>According to Dave Korn on 11/28/2009 1:28 PM:
>>Yes, twice, and indeed as you and I both expected, the configure test
>>for __wrap_Znaj only succeeds on 1.7, leading to different specs in the
>>generated compilers, to name but one minor difference. But unless I've
>>misunderstood union-fs there's no problem uploading two different
>>versions and putting an explicit one in the release-2 tree will just
>>override the shadowing, won't it?
>As long as 1.5 and 1.7 are released in parallel, there's no technical
>problem with shadowing the same release number. But when the 1.7
>release goes live, and someone uses setup.exe to upgrade their existing
>1.5 environment over to 1.7, setup will notice that they already have
>-2 installed, not realize that it was the -2 built against 1.5, and
>therefore not offer to upgrade to the 1.7 build of -2. The user will
>have to manually request a reinstall of the package to pick up the
>different build. But naming the 1.5 build -2 and the 1.7 build -3 will
>automatically upgrade the user's installation when they upgrade to
Yes, that a nice clarification. It's a good reason why the 1.7 version
of a package should always be > the 1.5 version.
This has absolutely nothing to do with union-fs. It does have to do with
I haven't done an exhaustive test to make sure that this is true but I'm
pretty sure that RHEL and Fedora don't share the same packages either.
This really shouldn't be a big issue right now anyway. I don't see why
anyone would be going to a lot of effort to support 1.5. We really should
be in feature freeze right now.