postinstall w/dependencies snapshot.

[Robert Collins]

On Sun, 2003-03-23 at 12:04, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> On 23 Mar 2003, Robert Collins wrote:
> > Well IMO yes it's obsolete. As I originally said, I consider the package
> > dependency ordering solution both the permanent and sufficient solution.
> > I always considered script dependencies short term, but if there are
> > still issues (now that the package dependency solution is 'doing the
> > right thing') I'm happy to discussion addressing that by either script
> > depends or tweaks to the package ordering....
> 
> Did we solve the issue of update_info_dir being run last?  Otherwise, I
> don't think there are any outstanding issues.

Thats not an issue AFAIK. It's easy to make happen now - Someone just
needs to offer Chris a patch for the update_info_dir script to have the
packages needing help listed in it's requires: clause. Then setup will
naturally run it after all of them. Note: update_info_dir has *never*
run last, since it was first introduced.

> I now agree that the idea of using package dependences for everything is
> better than putting dependences inside the scripts themselves.  There are
> two things dependences are used for: pulling the needed packages in, and
> running postinstall scripts.  We somehow need to reconcile them.

I'm not sure what you mean reconcile here? Are you referring to the
different graph visiting algorithms used in the two activities
(set_requirements and connectedBegin() ?)

Rob 

-- 
GPG key available at: <http://users.bigpond.net.au/robertc/keys.txt>.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin-apps/attachments/20030323/a61c3aa4/attachment.sig>