residual setup.hint

residual setup.hint

[Marco Atzeri]

Hi,
Not sure if "calm" is excluding them, but I noticed for same
packages we have now an excess of "setup.hint" as all existing
revision have their own package-revison.hint

libopenssl100/                                     26-Jan-2017 20:44       -
openssl-debuginfo/                                 26-Jan-2017 20:44       -
openssl-devel/                                     26-Jan-2017 20:44       -
openssl-perl/                                      26-Jan-2017 20:44       -
md5.sum                                            26-Jan-2017 21:44     442
openssl-1.0.2j-1-src.tar.xz                        26-Sep-2016 14:12      5M
openssl-1.0.2j-1.hint                              26-Sep-2016 14:12     348
openssl-1.0.2j-1.tar.xz                            26-Sep-2016 14:12    572K
openssl-1.0.2k-1-src.tar.xz                        26-Jan-2017 20:25      5M
openssl-1.0.2k-1.hint                              26-Jan-2017 20:25     348
openssl-1.0.2k-1.tar.xz                            26-Jan-2017 20:25    570K
setup.hint                                         04-May-2016 16:37     348
sha512.sum                                         26-Jan-2017 21:44    1207

Is a cleaning needed ?

Regards
Marco

Re: residual setup.hint

[Jon Turney]

On 04/04/2017 14:28, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> Not sure if "calm" is excluding them, but I noticed for some
> packages we have now an excess of "setup.hint" as all existing
> revision have their own package-revison.hint

These old setup.hint files should be benign, unless they are recording 
obsolete dependencies which aren't needed any more.

[...]
> Is a cleaning needed ?

Eventually, yes.

Unfortunately, a maintainer removing these files via '-setup.hint' is 
not permitted, as I haven't implemented it due to the complexity of 
determining if that is safe.

I've noted that there needs to be a migration plan for this (See [1])

I guess the first stage of which is to turn off uploads containing 
setup.hint (as generated by older versions of cygport), but I'm not sure 
we've reached that point in time, yet.

[1] https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2016-09/msg00025.html

Re: residual setup.hint

[Marco Atzeri]

On 04/04/2017 19:38, Jon Turney wrote:
> On 04/04/2017 14:28, Marco Atzeri wrote:
>> Not sure if "calm" is excluding them, but I noticed for some
>> packages we have now an excess of "setup.hint" as all existing
>> revision have their own package-revison.hint
>
> These old setup.hint files should be benign, unless they are recording
> obsolete dependencies which aren't needed any more.

I assume there is already some case, but I will need to check
to show some evidence.

> [...]
>> Is a cleaning needed ?
>
> Eventually, yes.
>
> Unfortunately, a maintainer removing these files via '-setup.hint' is
> not permitted, as I haven't implemented it due to the complexity of
> determining if that is safe.
>
> I've noted that there needs to be a migration plan for this (See [1])
>
> I guess the first stage of which is to turn off uploads containing
> setup.hint (as generated by older versions of cygport), but I'm not sure
> we've reached that point in time, yet.
>
> [1] https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2016-09/msg00025.html
>

I assume we are all using latest cygport and uploading only
package-revison.hint

Regards
Marco

Re: residual setup.hint

[Jon Turney]

On 05/04/2017 21:55, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> On 04/04/2017 19:38, Jon Turney wrote:
>> On 04/04/2017 14:28, Marco Atzeri wrote:
>>> Not sure if "calm" is excluding them, but I noticed for some
>>> packages we have now an excess of "setup.hint" as all existing
>>> revision have their own package-revison.hint
>>
>> These old setup.hint files should be benign, unless they are recording
>> obsolete dependencies which aren't needed any more.
>
> I assume there is already some case, but I will need to check
> to show some evidence.

Actually, after looking at the code today, I think in the case where the 
setup.hint is obsolete, it doesn't contribute anything to dependencies, 
but I'd need to test that to be sure...

Anyhow, I worked out a relatively simple way to clean these up, so I 
will do that.

>> [...]
>>> Is a cleaning needed ?
>>
>> Eventually, yes.
>>
>> Unfortunately, a maintainer removing these files via '-setup.hint' is
>> not permitted, as I haven't implemented it due to the complexity of
>> determining if that is safe.
>>
>> I've noted that there needs to be a migration plan for this (See [1])
>>
>> I guess the first stage of which is to turn off uploads containing
>> setup.hint (as generated by older versions of cygport), but I'm not sure
>> we've reached that point in time, yet.
>>
>> [1] https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2016-09/msg00025.html
>>
>
> I assume we are all using latest cygport and uploading only
> package-revison.hint

:hollow laughter:

Yes, one would assume that, but it turns out not to be the case :)

Re: residual setup.hint

[Marco Atzeri]

On 06/04/2017 00:42, Jon Turney wrote:

>> I assume we are all using latest cygport and uploading only
>> package-revison.hint
>
> :hollow laughter:
>
> Yes, one would assume that, but it turns out not to be the case :)

It is not so bad.
For what I see in the last 3 months only cygwin, mintty and gcc packages
where using setup.hint

And probably they are all cross-compiled ..

Regards
Marco

Re: residual setup.hint

[Jon Turney]

On 06/04/2017 04:39, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> On 06/04/2017 00:42, Jon Turney wrote:
>
>>> I assume we are all using latest cygport and uploading only
>>> package-revison.hint
>>
>> :hollow laughter:
>>
>> Yes, one would assume that, but it turns out not to be the case :)
>
> It is not so bad.
> For what I see in the last 3 months only cygwin, mintty and gcc packages
> where using setup.hint
>
> And probably they are all cross-compiled ..

I deployed a small update to calm today:

Unneeded setup.hint files will now be removed from the release area.

Additionally, a warning telling you to upgrade cygport will now be given 
when uploading a setup.hint file.