On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 02:28:14PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote: >On 7/16/2013 2:59 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 08:50:08PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>> >>> The former setup64 doesn't complain, but I don't think this is a setup >>> problem. Rather, it's a difference between the generated ini files. >>> The old setup64.ini was only generated by genini, the new by upset. >>> >>> For instance, here's the gcc entry generated by genini: >>> >>> @ gcc >>> sdesc: "GNU Compiler Collection" >>> ldesc: "The GNU Compiler Collection includes front ends for C, C++, >>> Objective-C, Fortran, Java, Ada, and Go, as well as libraries for these >>> languages (libstdc++, libgcj,...)." >>> category: Devel >>> >>> And here's the gcc entry as generated by upset: >>> >>> @ gcc >>> sdesc: "GNU Compiler Collection" >>> ldesc: "The GNU Compiler Collection includes front ends for C, C++, >>> Objective-C, Fortran, Java, Ada, and Go, as well as libraries for these >>> languages (libstdc++, libgcj,...)." >>> category: Devel >>> version: 4.8.1-1 >>> source: x86_64/release/gcc/gcc-4.8.1-1-src.tar.bz2 87070214 >>> eb70273d8a2a555d995b0675980fcc1c >>> [prev] >>> version: 4.8.0-2 >>> source: x86_64/release/gcc/gcc-4.8.0-2-src.tar.bz2 86977149 >>> 128658603c4daac97e62b4778c22a56d >>> >>> So in one case the entry doesn't contain any package, in the other >>> case we have "source" entries. With the same input, I bet setup64 >>> behaves the same as setup-x86_64. >>> >>> [...time passes, testing...] >>> >>> yes, when using the new setup.ini with the old setup64.exe, the effect >>> is the same. >> >> Thanks for checking. Sounds like a genini bug. >> >> I've uploaded a new upset which checks for this corner case problem. > >So...genini should generate version/source lines for directories that >contain only -src packages and no binary. > >But, wouldn't that mean that setup[-x86|-x86_64||64] would still >complain if there were a setup.hint "somewhere" in tree that required: >the source-only package? I think the answer is yes; so what's the >solution there? cgf's change to upset to make it complain about the >situation, in a "Doctor, it hurts when I do this/Then don't do that" >kind of way?
I just fixed (in theory) the possibility that a (IMO) malformed setup.ini would cause a problem in setup.exe. It would be really nice if someone could fix setup.exe too since it definitely shouldn't be possible to get into the state where the user gets a "Download incomplete" and requires Ken Brown's insight to figure out why. Btw, the upset solution was to issue an error and not generate the .ini file at all. cgf
