Re: New Setup for Cygwin 1.7 on cygwin.com

[Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@cygwin.com>]

On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 01:58:48AM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote:
>Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
>> Why didn't upset pick up the change?
>
>Perhaps it has to do with the design of upset being incremental, i.e.
>taking the current setup-2.ini as input and applying updates to it
>rather than generating it from whole each time.  It might be confused
>upon not seeing a "requires:" at all in the .hint and so it leaves the
>existing "requires:" in the .ini unchanged.  If this is the case then
>listing an explicit empty "requires:" in the .hint would probably work
>around it.  If true then it sounds like more of a bug to fix than
>something we want to kludge around.

It's not really a bug but it isn't needed anymore.  If there are no
dependencies in setup.hint but there are dependencies in setup.ini then
it's assumed that setup.hint is incomplete.

I started looking into removing that behavior last weekend but it never
dawned on me that this is what was happening here.  In theory all that
you have to do is remove the -u option when generating setup so that it
doesn't initially read setup.ini but, when I did that, the resulting
setup.ini was very different and I haven't completed figuring out why.

cgf