ftp.delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2002/02/27/08:49:03

Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 08:53:47 -0500
From: Jason Tishler <jason AT tishler DOT net>
Subject: Re: A couple of setup.exe nits
In-reply-to:
<FC169E059D1A0442A04C40F86D9BA76008AAD0 AT itdomain003 DOT itdomain DOT net DOT au>
To: Robert Collins <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
Cc: Cygwin-Apps <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
Mail-followup-to: Robert Collins <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>,
Cygwin-Apps <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
Message-id: <20020227135347.GB1144@hp.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.24i
References: <FC169E059D1A0442A04C40F86D9BA76008AAD0 AT itdomain003 DOT itdomain DOT net DOT au>

Rob,

On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 12:32:06AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jason Tishler [mailto:jason AT tishler DOT net] 
> > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 12:23 AM
> > 
> > 1. setup.exe no longer responds to Windows messages during 
> > postinstall.
> > 
> > I noticed this because one of my postinstall scripts did a 
> > SendMessage(HWND_BROADCAST, ...) which caused a deadlock 
> > situation. I changed to PostMessage() to workaround the 
> > problem.  Note that Task Manager also indicates a status of 
> > "Not Responding".
> 
> Hmm, do we care? (Seriously, do we?/should we?)

I don't know.  However, this is a change in behavior and one that can
cause deadlocks and make Task Manager "unhappy."

> > 2. /etc/setup/installed.db indicates files end with ".bz2" 
> > regardless of
> >    their true suffix.
> 
> Which files? The list files or the package files? If the package files,
> then that is purely for backwards compatability with older setup's to
> ensure that they still parse it correctly. The canonical package name
> was never used for anything that isn't present elsewhere anyway.

Package files.  From the above, I guess that there is no need to worry.

Thanks,
Jason

- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019