From: Fergus Daly <fergusd84@outlook.com>
To: "'cygwin@cygwin.com'" <cygwin@cygwin.com>
Subject: Re: Current setup timestamp 1590343308
Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 16:47:18 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <AM6PR03MB5282721443D5697079ED1A7CA4B30@AM6PR03MB5282.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
>> It looks to me that /etc/setup/timestamp is updated by the last successful setup
>> (upgrade?) run, and contains a copy of the selected mirror's setup.ini
>> setup_timestamp field as of the last successful setup (upgrade?) run, a few
>> hours earlier than the last successful setup (upgrade?) run.
Thank you for this.
I can't really think of anything to say other than repeat my observation, today, of altered practice.
Since as long as I can remember (and I mean - a matter of years) a successful upgrade of Cygwin32
(implementing the current version of setup-x86.exe currently 2.904
and pulling in the latest version of setup.ini found at {source}/Cygwin/x86/)
has concluded with
(i) a glitch-free accounting in /var/log/setup.log(.full), together with
(ii) a revision of the file /etc/setup/timestamp
which reflects the timestamp line in the aforementioned setup.ini file.
(And other things too, quite apart from any updates to the Cygwin provision - e.g. an updated /etc/setup/installed.db file.)
What I have observed, twice now (earlier today using setup.ini incorporating timestamp 1590343308 and now using the latest setup.ini incorporating timestamp 1590407755) is that event (ii) is failing: the file /etc/setup/timestamp is not updated - and if it isn't there at all, it is not created.
Maybe this does not matter. The file is not referred to during any upgrade session (or not obviously - I think the contents of /etc/setup/installed.db are what dictate any necessary upgrades to an individual user's Cygwin provision) but it has been, for me at least, a useful rapid check of whether "what I've got" matches "what is now available".
All I was trying to do was draw attention to (what I perceive to be) suddenly altered practice, with no change to the setup executable that might have explained it or caused it. So (a) is it a real change? (easily confirmed, or not, by anybody with /etc/setup/timestamp reporting < 1590407755 then running an upgrade, and seeing what happens to /etc/setup/timestamp); and (b) if so, is it intended? or is it a trivial glitch introduced goodness-knows-how that can be corrected; and (c) if intended, to provide what improvement? because it seems to me a bad move.
Fergus
next reply other threads:[~2020-05-25 16:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-05-25 16:47 Fergus Daly [this message]
2020-05-25 19:12 ` Ken Brown
2020-05-25 20:14 ` Fergus Daly
2020-05-25 21:52 ` Brian Inglis
2020-05-25 21:53 ` Brian Inglis
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2020-05-27 9:10 Fergus Daly
2020-05-25 12:02 Fergus Daly
2020-05-25 12:13 ` marco atzeri
2020-05-25 12:26 ` Fergus Daly
2020-05-25 13:12 ` Brian Inglis
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=AM6PR03MB5282721443D5697079ED1A7CA4B30@AM6PR03MB5282.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com \
--to=fergusd84@outlook.com \
--cc=cygwin@cygwin.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).