Local Setup Cache

Local Setup Cache

[Michael A. Chase]

Currently, setup.exe downloads package files from whatever mirror site a
user selects and then installs the packages.  As new versions are produced,
they get downloaded and installed to replace the old version, but the
archive files for the old version are not removed.  Eventually this may fill
significant amounts of disk space with obsolete files.

I see two likely ways for handling this problem:

1.  Provide a program that removes files from the cache if they are not
listed in setup.ini.  The problem with this is that inexperienced users are
unlikely to run the cleanup program often enough for it to do any good.

2.  Modify setup.exe so it will remove obsolete files.  The problem with
this is that it adds yet another feature to setup.exe.

Does anyone see any other possibilities?
--
Mac :})
** I normally forward private questions to the appropriate mail list. **
Give a hobbit a fish and he eats fish for a day.
Give a hobbit a ring and he eats fish for an age.



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

RE: Local Setup Cache

[Norman Vine]

Michael A. Chase
>
>Currently, setup.exe downloads package files from whatever mirror site a
>user selects and then installs the packages.  As new versions are produced,
>they get downloaded and installed to replace the old version, but the
>archive files for the old version are not removed.  Eventually this may
fill
>significant amounts of disk space with obsolete files.
>
>I see two likely ways for handling this problem:

>Does anyone see any other possibilities?

3) Some of us may want to keep the old versions for
     various reasons

so IMHO any builtin archive cleaner should be non-automatic

Cheers

Norman Vine


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Local Setup Cache

[Robert Collins]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael A. Chase" <mchase@ix.netcom.com>
To: <cygwin@sources.redhat.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 2:04 PM
Subject: Local Setup Cache


> Currently, setup.exe downloads package files from whatever mirror site a
> user selects and then installs the packages.  As new versions are
produced,
> they get downloaded and installed to replace the old version, but the
> archive files for the old version are not removed.  Eventually this may
fill
> significant amounts of disk space with obsolete files.
>
> I see two likely ways for handling this problem:
>
> 1.  Provide a program that removes files from the cache if they are not
> listed in setup.ini.  The problem with this is that inexperienced users
are
> unlikely to run the cleanup program often enough for it to do any good.
>
> 2.  Modify setup.exe so it will remove obsolete files.  The problem with
> this is that it adds yet another feature to setup.exe.

Setup.exe is used to bootstrap and maintain the _system_. IMO adding
non-installation features to setup.exe just increases it's size with little
benefit... but dselect uses a similar technique, however they just remove
_all_ cached files on the basis that once a files been installed it's not
needed again (unlesss you are installing another machine, when you would say
"N"). The question is only asked when no errors are encountered.

>  Does anyone see any other possibilities?

Not really - in setup vs out of setup is pretty binary :}. I'm against it
(even given my dselect comparison above) while setup.exe is used to install
local files by scanning. If setup could be called like "setup --install
my-local-file-path" in addition to the cache directory, then yes. Otherwise
I think its too hard to make sure we don't wipe out some users local files
that were never downloaded by setup.exe in the first place. If we do do
something in-setup the dselect model akes a lot of sense to me. (delete it
all, the setup is complete after all).

Rob


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Local Setup Cache & Rlogin problems

[Sandeep Tamhankar]

I concur.  Last week I upgraded everything and then the rlogin daemon 
stopped working.  (Side note: It still doesn't work; I posted info on 
this list but have only gotten one response stating they have the 
problem too, so it's not just my computer being weird).  Unfortunately, 
last week I didn't know that the old versions of packages are still 
saved in my system.  If I'd known this then, I would've reported exactly 
which modules got upgraded to cause my problems.

Hmm, it'd probably be a good idea to do this now: upon doing some 
research, I found that my login package was upgraded from 1.4-1 to 
1.4-2.  My inetutils was upgraded from 1.3.2-11 to 1.3.2-14.  My Cygwin 
itself was upgraded from an old 1.1.8-2 to a whopping 1.3.2-1.

The symptom I'm seeing is that the rlogin actually succeeds and then 
login yells because I don't seem to have permission to execute 
/bin/bash.  But I do since it's world-readable.  And I can telnet into 
the machine and all is well with the world.  And I can open up bash 
windows on the console.  The other really weird symptom is that when I 
rlogin as a different valid username/password, it rejects the login 
attempt completely.  So I can try rlogging in as myself and getting 
permission denied from login.exe, or I get a total authentication 
failure when trying to rlog in as someone else.

This is W2k and someone on this list already mentioned that they've seen 
the same problem on W2k, although it used to work for them on NT.  If I 
can get my hands on an NT box (and some time to play with this), I'll 
try setting it up there and testing it out.

Any advice would be appreciated.

-Sandeep
P.S. I have a sneaking suspicion ntsec is responsible for this.  What do 
I lose if I turn ntsec off?  I think I tried it already, and it didn't 
help, but I tried so many combinations of things that I really don't 
remember at this point.

Norman Vine wrote:

>Michael A. Chase
>
>>Currently, setup.exe downloads package files from whatever mirror site a
>>user selects and then installs the packages.  As new versions are produced,
>>they get downloaded and installed to replace the old version, but the
>>archive files for the old version are not removed.  Eventually this may
>>
>fill
>
>>significant amounts of disk space with obsolete files.
>>
>>I see two likely ways for handling this problem:
>>
>>Does anyone see any other possibilities?
>>
>
>3) Some of us may want to keep the old versions for
>     various reasons
>
>so IMHO any builtin archive cleaner should be non-automatic
>
>Cheers
>
>Norman Vine
>
>
>--
>Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
>Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
>Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
>FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
>



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Local Setup Cache & Rlogin problems

[Brian Ling]

I have had similar problems to this with rlogin, I went back to cygwin-1.3.1
with everything else current and rlogin started  working again.

This was on a 95 box.

Good Luck

Brian 






on 2/7/01 10:34 pm, Sandeep Tamhankar at sandman@Interwoven.com wrote:

> I concur.  Last week I upgraded everything and then the rlogin daemon
> stopped working.  (Side note: It still doesn't work; I posted info on
> this list but have only gotten one response stating they have the
> problem too, so it's not just my computer being weird).  Unfortunately,
> last week I didn't know that the old versions of packages are still
> saved in my system.  If I'd known this then, I would've reported exactly
> which modules got upgraded to cause my problems.
> 
> Hmm, it'd probably be a good idea to do this now: upon doing some
> research, I found that my login package was upgraded from 1.4-1 to
> 1.4-2.  My inetutils was upgraded from 1.3.2-11 to 1.3.2-14.  My Cygwin
> itself was upgraded from an old 1.1.8-2 to a whopping 1.3.2-1.
> 
> The symptom I'm seeing is that the rlogin actually succeeds and then
> login yells because I don't seem to have permission to execute
> /bin/bash.  But I do since it's world-readable.  And I can telnet into
> the machine and all is well with the world.  And I can open up bash
> windows on the console.  The other really weird symptom is that when I
> rlogin as a different valid username/password, it rejects the login
> attempt completely.  So I can try rlogging in as myself and getting
> permission denied from login.exe, or I get a total authentication
> failure when trying to rlog in as someone else.
> 
> This is W2k and someone on this list already mentioned that they've seen
> the same problem on W2k, although it used to work for them on NT.  If I
> can get my hands on an NT box (and some time to play with this), I'll
> try setting it up there and testing it out.
> 
> Any advice would be appreciated.
> 
> -Sandeep
> P.S. I have a sneaking suspicion ntsec is responsible for this.  What do
> I lose if I turn ntsec off?  I think I tried it already, and it didn't
> help, but I tried so many combinations of things that I really don't
> remember at this point.
> 
> Norman Vine wrote:
> 
>> Michael A. Chase
>> 
>>> Currently, setup.exe downloads package files from whatever mirror site a
>>> user selects and then installs the packages.  As new versions are produced,
>>> they get downloaded and installed to replace the old version, but the
>>> archive files for the old version are not removed.  Eventually this may
>>> 
>> fill
>> 
>>> significant amounts of disk space with obsolete files.
>>> 
>>> I see two likely ways for handling this problem:
>>> 
>>> Does anyone see any other possibilities?
>>> 
>> 
>> 3) Some of us may want to keep the old versions for
>> various reasons
>> 
>> so IMHO any builtin archive cleaner should be non-automatic
>> 
>> Cheers
>> 
>> Norman Vine
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
>> Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
>> Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
>> FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
> Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
> Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
> FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
> 


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/