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

Andrew Schulman schulman.andrew@epa.gov
Fri Nov 21 19:13:00 GMT 2014

> > > 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


Frankly it all looks overcomplicated to me.  The current system of "here's
a postinstall script, run it once some time after the package files are
installed" has always completely met my needs.  But I get that other
packages have stronger requirements, so I don't object.  

As long as cygport will handle the details of naming the script, maybe from
hints in the cygport file about the priority or order, then it doesn't
matter to me which proposal we use.


More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list