setup.exe command line parameters

setup.exe command line parameters

[Ralph Hempel]

We've been discussing adding support for specifying package
names on the setup.exe command line in the main cygwin list
and it was suggested that the topic should be moved here.

The discussion centered around this patch:

<http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.os.cygwin.applications/16502>

And has ended up with me looking at the current state of setup.exe
and asking this question after Dave Korn's comment...

> Dave Korn wrote:

>  Well, it needs a little debugging first, but it shouldn't be tricky to
> bash into shape.

Sorry for taking so long, but here's what we have so far. The "newer"
patch referred to by Reini is against but the patch is against 2.590
which looks like it's a bout 2 point releases behind the current version
in the 1.7 tree for setup.

The current "released" version of setup is 2.573.2.2

So the question is, if I'm going to look at patching setup to accept
a list of packages on the command line, then which version should
we be merging the patches against?

Ralph

Re: setup.exe command line parameters

[Ralph Hempel]

Ummm this part makes no sense, so let me rephrase...

> Sorry for taking so long, but here's what we have so far. The "newer"
> patch referred to by Reini is against 2.590 which looks like it's
 > about 2 point releases behind the current version in the
 > 1.7 tree.
> 
> The current "released" version of setup is 2.573.2.2
> 
> So the question is, if I'm going to look at patching setup to accept
> a list of packages on the command line, then which version should
> we be merging the patches against?
> 
> Ralph
> 
> 
> 
> 

RE: setup.exe command line parameters

[Dave Korn]

Ralph Hempel wrote on 24 June 2008 14:13:

> Ummm this part makes no sense, so let me rephrase...
> 
>> Sorry for taking so long, but here's what we have so far. The "newer"
>> patch referred to by Reini is against 2.590 which looks like it's
>  > about 2 point releases behind the current version in the
>  > 1.7 tree.
>> 
>> The current "released" version of setup is 2.573.2.2
>> 
>> So the question is, if I'm going to look at patching setup to accept
>> a list of packages on the command line, then which version should
>> we be merging the patches against?
>> 
>> Ralph

  The best thing to do is to work against CVS as explained at 
    http://sourceware.org/cygwin-apps/setup.html
in the section "Getting the source code from CVS and building".

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Re: setup.exe command line parameters

[Reini Urban]

Dave Korn schrieb:
> Ralph Hempel wrote on 24 June 2008 14:13:
> 
>> Ummm this part makes no sense, so let me rephrase...
>>
>>> Sorry for taking so long, but here's what we have so far. The "newer"
>>> patch referred to by Reini is against 2.590 which looks like it's
>>  > about 2 point releases behind the current version in the
>>  > 1.7 tree.
>>> The current "released" version of setup is 2.573.2.2
>>>
>>> So the question is, if I'm going to look at patching setup to accept
>>> a list of packages on the command line, then which version should
>>> we be merging the patches against?
>>>
>>> Ralph
> 
>   The best thing to do is to work against CVS as explained at 
>     http://sourceware.org/cygwin-apps/setup.html
> in the section "Getting the source code from CVS and building".

For reference:
The current three command-line patches at the tracker are all against 
current HEAD and should applied in the following order:

rurban@reini /usr/src/cygwin-apps/setup
$ quilt series
patches/6689-goossens-rev1.patch
patches/6688-switch-p.patch
patches/854-peschko-cmdlines.patch

http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6689
http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6688
http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=854

-- 
Reini Urban
http://phpwiki.org/  http://murbreak.at/

Re: setup.exe command line parameters

[Ralph Hempel]

Reini Urban wrote:

> For reference:
> The current three command-line patches at the tracker are all against 
> current HEAD and should applied in the following order:
> 
> rurban@reini /usr/src/cygwin-apps/setup
> $ quilt series
> patches/6689-goossens-rev1.patch
> patches/6688-switch-p.patch
> patches/854-peschko-cmdlines.patch
> 
> http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6689
> http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6688
> http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=854

OK, so I can build a setup.exe that does what I want by retreiving HEAD
then applying the patches in order and recompiling.

So I really don't need to do anything that is not already done, which
is good because it stops this part of the thread for now :-)

The other part of the thread deals with when the "new" setup.exe should
be released, with what feature set, and whether to backport the changes.

Maybe that should be a separate thread now :-)

And I support Brian's thoughts re getting an RC out if there are
significant changes to setup.exe - in particular the totally
new use-case of command line package specification.

Cheers, Ralph

Re: setup.exe command line parameters

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 05:08:12PM +0200, Reini Urban wrote:
> http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=854

Just a minor nit but please use sourceware.org rather than
sources.redhat.com.  sourceware.org is the preferred name of the system.

cgf

Re: setup.exe command line parameters

[Ralph Hempel]

Reini Urban wrote:

> For reference:
> The current three command-line patches at the tracker are all against 
> current HEAD and should applied in the following order:
> 
> rurban@reini /usr/src/cygwin-apps/setup
> $ quilt series
> patches/6689-goossens-rev1.patch
> patches/6688-switch-p.patch
> patches/854-peschko-cmdlines.patch
> 
> http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6689
> http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6688
> http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=854

Reini/All:

I've finally got a few spare cycles to work on this and
pulled the current setup code out of cvs, done a basic configure
and build as per instructions in README and it worked.

So far so good.

Then I located the three patches you mentioned in bugzilla
and put them in my devel tree under

   setup/patches

And created a setup/patches/series file to specify the
order for the patches. (As an aside, I had never used
quilt but I can see it will be handy...)

Looking at these patches, it seems that the 6689 patch
should run from within the setup tree, but 6688 and 854
should run from one level higher.

I ended up adding a "setup/" prefix to the filenames in the 6689
patch and it worked cleanly after that.

I've got quilt downloaded, but when I run it on my minimal
cygwin install it complains that it can't find "getopt"

A bit of googling turned up the hint that the util-linux
package has getopt, so that should probably be added to the
quilt dependency list?

So, after modifying the 6689 patch and installing quilt
and util-linux I now am configuring and building a new
setup.exe

I'll keep the list posted on progress. The goal is, of course
to get a setup that accepts a list of packages on the command line
so that I can help users setting up cygwin for building an arm
cross compile toolchain.

Cheers, Ralph

Re: setup.exe command line parameters

[Ralph Hempel]

Ralph Hempel wrote:

> I'll keep the list posted on progress. The goal is, of course
> to get a setup that accepts a list of packages on the command line
> so that I can help users setting up cygwin for building an arm
> cross compile toolchain.

Bad form, but makeing my patched setup complains about undeclared 
variable names in ConnectionSettings.cc around line 45:

   net_method
   net_proxy_port
   net_proxy_host

I'm not really a big C++ programmer, so looking around the other
source I see that maybe the NetIO:: class prefix is missing?

Here's a thought...since I'm applying these patches against the latest
and greatest setup HEAD, is this really the 1.7 setup or the 1.5 setup?

The last changelog entry is by Charles Wilson on July 8, 2008

Ralph