This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [HEADSUP] Proposal for change in postinstall script handling (was Re: [RFC] incremental rebase)


On Nov 21 11:21, Andrew Schulman wrote:
> > On Nov 19 12:38, Achim Gratz wrote:
> > > Corinna Vinschen writes:
> > > >> In any case, this is mainly about putting the mechanism in place or
> > > >> rather to specify it.  Making it usable would require support from
> > > >> cygport and upset/genini.
> > > >
> > > > Not upset, it seems.  IIUC the stratumification can firmly stay in
> > > > setup' s hands with some support from cygport.  Upset wouldn't even
> > > > notice it.
> > > 
> > > >> Using hidden groups (like the non-functional
> > > >> _PostInstallLast we already have) would be an obvious way to do that.
> > > >
> > > > Isn't that moot then?  Stratum z would do it for free...
> > > 
> > > In both cases the use of the prefix is what decides the stratum.
> > > Arguably that could be made explicit in setup.hint instead, but that
> > > would require extension of the data format and changes to tools that use
> > > the data.  As long as we're manually assigning those strata (or farming
> > > this out into cygport) then no such support would be needed indeed.
> > > 
> > > ANother question: setup is used by other projects it seems.  How do we
> > > ensure they either agree with us or are unaffected by this change?
> > > 
> > > > Makes sense.  And the naming convention?  No chance for collisions with
> > > > existing scripts?
> > > 
> > > The Cygwin Package Search says that no such postinstall scripts
> > > currently exist, so I'd say we're GTG with the prefix idea.
> > 
> > I'd like to have some more input here.  Maintainers, if you have any
> > input to this, please follow up.
> 
> I'm sorry - I didn't follow the previous discussion and am having trouble
> following this.  Could you please restate what's being proposed?

It starts here: https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2014-11/msg00064.html

Two major proposals on the plate:

  https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2014-11/msg00086.html
  https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2014-11/msg00098.html


HTH,
Corinna

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

Attachment: pgpN39AXVQTbV.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]