Re: [PATCH] cygcheck -s should not imply -d

On 13/01/2011 12:33, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jan 11 14:26, Jon TURNEY wrote:
>> On 11/01/2011 08:10, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> I wasn't quite sure either, but while running cygcheck with Jon's patch
>>> it started to make more sense.  We can also change the docs to ask for
>>> `cygcheck -svrd' output, but I guess we should just wait and see.
>>
>> FWIW (I don't have all packages installed), mutt is the only package I have
>> installed for which cygcheck -c falsely reports a problem.
>>
>> $ cygcheck -c | grep -v OK
>> Cygwin Package Information
>> Package                        Version                  Status
>> mutt                           1.5.20-1                 Incomplete
> 
> Do you happen to know why?

You can read my ill-informed speculation about this matter at [1] 

[1] http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin-apps/2010-11/msg00065.html

>> Would a patch to http://cygwin.com/setup.html be welcome recommending that:
>> (a) if a package installs files which a user is expected to customize, don't
>> trample over those customizations when the package is upgraded/reinstalled
> 
> Isn't that what /etc/defaults and /etc/postinstall is for, basically?
> I'm not sure I understand what you're proposing.  At which point should
> setup warn and how is it supposed to know that a file is a
> user-customizable one?  In theory, that's all in the responsibility
> of the package.