Re: nano - packaged and ready for some criticism :)

[Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>]

On Fri, Nov 16, 2001 at 04:21:38PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf@redhat.com>
>>
>> Sure.  If you've got a solution, I have no objections.  I just didn't
>> think it was a big deal, either way.
>>
>> And, ur, I've been one of those screwed up package maintainers.  I
>don't
>> even currently rebuild dir in any of my packages and I really should.
>>
>> Or, actually, I think either setup.exe should be intelligent enough to
>> do this for you or there should be some way for a package to say
>"please
>> run this standard bit of machinery for me".
>
>Chuck has made my point about multiple packages doing this.
>
>As for some standard bit of machinery sure... There's this thing called
>a postinstall script ;}.
>
>Seriously though, setup would have to call out to ash to run a
>dynamically created install-the-info-files script anyway, so having this
>done directly makes to me. I've no strong opinion though, with one
>caveat: whatever does it , must call install-info (ie no patches to make
>setup.exe contain install-info's functionality, thank-you-very-much.)

Um, no.  I don't think that anyone wants setup.exe to become a replacement
for install-info.

I just don't want to have to write my own 'dir' file updater.

I'm not convinced that setup.exe couldn't detect certain common things like
installing .info files and "do the right thing", either.

cgf