64-bit gcc-4.8.1 package installs source instead

64-bit gcc-4.8.1 package installs source instead

[Ryan Johnson]

Hi all,

If I select the gcc-4.8.1-1 package from setup-64, it downloads and 
installs the gcc-4.8.1-src package, which AFAICT includes  a tarball of 
the gcc sources, a patch, and a cygport file:

$ for f in $(find /usr -name '*gcc*'); do echo "$f: $(cygcheck -f $f)"; done
/usr/src/4.8-libgcc-cygwin64.patch:
/usr/src/gcc-4.8.1.tar.bz2:
/usr/src/gcc.cygport:
/usr/bin/cyggcc_s-seh-1.dll: libgcc-4.8.1-1

Oddly (and the reason for the little script above):

$ cygcheck -dc | grep gcc
libgcc    4.8.1-1

In other words, cygwin thinks that neither gcc nor gcc-src is actually 
installed, and will happily repeat the broken install as many times as 
I've tried so far.

Packaging bug?

Ryan




--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: 64-bit gcc-4.8.1 package installs source instead

[Yaakov (Cygwin/X)]

On 2013-07-23 16:26, Ryan Johnson wrote:
> If I select the gcc-4.8.1-1 package from setup-64, it downloads and
> installs the gcc-4.8.1-src package

gcc is only a source-only meta-package; you want to install gcc-core, 
gcc-g++, etc.


Yaakov



--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: 64-bit gcc-4.8.1 package installs source instead

[Ryan Johnson]

On 07/22/2013 05:38 PM, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> On 2013-07-23 16:26, Ryan Johnson wrote:
>> If I select the gcc-4.8.1-1 package from setup-64, it downloads and
>> installs the gcc-4.8.1-src package
>
> gcc is only a source-only meta-package; you want to install gcc-core, 
> gcc-g++, etc.
Oh, that's a little different than (a) the name suggests and (b) 
historical precedent, which IIRC had "gcc" as a meta package that pulled 
in all the other gcc-related stuff you'd need.

Anyway, thanks for the tip, I'll try that.

Ryan


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: 64-bit gcc-4.8.1 package installs source instead

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Jul 23 17:47, Ryan Johnson wrote:
> On 07/22/2013 05:38 PM, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> >On 2013-07-23 16:26, Ryan Johnson wrote:
> >>If I select the gcc-4.8.1-1 package from setup-64, it downloads and
> >>installs the gcc-4.8.1-src package
> >
> >gcc is only a source-only meta-package; you want to install
> >gcc-core, gcc-g++, etc.
> Oh, that's a little different than (a) the name suggests and (b)
> historical precedent, which IIRC had "gcc" as a meta package that
> pulled in all the other gcc-related stuff you'd need.
> 
> Anyway, thanks for the tip, I'll try that.

Shouldn't we introduce an empty gcc binary archive for just this
situation?


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: 64-bit gcc-4.8.1 package installs source instead

[Yaakov (Cygwin/X)]

On 2013-07-23 02:22, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jul 23 17:47, Ryan Johnson wrote:
>> On 07/22/2013 05:38 PM, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
>>> gcc is only a source-only meta-package; you want to install
>>> gcc-core, gcc-g++, etc.
>> Oh, that's a little different than (a) the name suggests and (b)
>> historical precedent, which IIRC had "gcc" as a meta package that
>> pulled in all the other gcc-related stuff you'd need.
>>
>> Anyway, thanks for the tip, I'll try that.
>
> Shouldn't we introduce an empty gcc binary archive for just this
> situation?

This is one case where IMO genini is better than upset: genini-generated 
setup.ini's don't list source-only packages in setup's package selector, 
while still being available through the "Src" option of any of its 
subpackages.  Could upset be changed to match, which would avoid this 
problem for *all* source-only packages?


Yaakov


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: 64-bit gcc-4.8.1 package installs source instead

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Jul 23 03:20, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> On 2013-07-23 02:22, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Jul 23 17:47, Ryan Johnson wrote:
> >>On 07/22/2013 05:38 PM, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> >>>gcc is only a source-only meta-package; you want to install
> >>>gcc-core, gcc-g++, etc.
> >>Oh, that's a little different than (a) the name suggests and (b)
> >>historical precedent, which IIRC had "gcc" as a meta package that
> >>pulled in all the other gcc-related stuff you'd need.
> >>
> >>Anyway, thanks for the tip, I'll try that.
> >
> >Shouldn't we introduce an empty gcc binary archive for just this
> >situation?
> 
> This is one case where IMO genini is better than upset:
> genini-generated setup.ini's don't list source-only packages in
> setup's package selector, while still being available through the
> "Src" option of any of its subpackages.  Could upset be changed to
> match, which would avoid this problem for *all* source-only
> packages?

I guess so, but this is one for Chris.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: 64-bit gcc-4.8.1 package installs source instead

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 03:20:11AM -0500, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
>On 2013-07-23 02:22, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Jul 23 17:47, Ryan Johnson wrote:
>>> On 07/22/2013 05:38 PM, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
>>>> gcc is only a source-only meta-package; you want to install
>>>> gcc-core, gcc-g++, etc.
>>> Oh, that's a little different than (a) the name suggests and (b)
>>> historical precedent, which IIRC had "gcc" as a meta package that
>>> pulled in all the other gcc-related stuff you'd need.
>>>
>>> Anyway, thanks for the tip, I'll try that.
>>
>> Shouldn't we introduce an empty gcc binary archive for just this
>> situation?
>
>This is one case where IMO genini is better than upset: genini-generated 
>setup.ini's don't list source-only packages in setup's package selector, 
>while still being available through the "Src" option of any of its 
>subpackages.  Could upset be changed to match, which would avoid this 
>problem for *all* source-only packages?

Why not just rename the package "gcc-src" to make it clear what's going
on?

cgf

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: 64-bit gcc-4.8.1 package installs source instead

[Yaakov (Cygwin/X)]

On 2013-07-23 11:16, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 03:20:11AM -0500, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
>> This is one case where IMO genini is better than upset: genini-generated
>> setup.ini's don't list source-only packages in setup's package selector,
>> while still being available through the "Src" option of any of its
>> subpackages.  Could upset be changed to match, which would avoid this
>> problem for *all* source-only packages?
>
> Why not just rename the package "gcc-src" to make it clear what's going
> on?

gcc is only one example; many packages (most being library-only) have a 
source-only "main" package.  Not listing them while still allowing Src 
(as genini does) makes things very clear IMHO.


Yaakov


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: 64-bit gcc-4.8.1 package installs source instead

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 02:54:29PM -0500, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
>On 2013-07-23 11:16, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 03:20:11AM -0500, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
>>> This is one case where IMO genini is better than upset: genini-generated
>>> setup.ini's don't list source-only packages in setup's package selector,
>>> while still being available through the "Src" option of any of its
>>> subpackages.  Could upset be changed to match, which would avoid this
>>> problem for *all* source-only packages?
>>
>> Why not just rename the package "gcc-src" to make it clear what's going
>> on?
>
>gcc is only one example; many packages (most being library-only) have a 
>source-only "main" package.  Not listing them while still allowing Src 
>(as genini does) makes things very clear IMHO.

Yes, I got that you like the probable bug that caused genini to not list
these packages.

The fact that there are multiple packages with this issue isn't really
an advertisement for clarity.

"I'm looking for the source for gcc but the only thing I could find was
the source for gcc-java" isn't really very clear.  Nor is the sdesc for
gcc which says "GNU Compiler Collection".  That's just misleading.

cgf

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple