Setup 2.774 texlive postinstall takes 10+ hours

Corinna Vinschen
Mon Nov 3 14:52:00 GMT 2014

On Nov  3 07:43, Ken Brown wrote:
> On 11/3/2014 5:25 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Nov  2 13:02, Ken Brown wrote:
> >>On 10/30/2014 6:27 PM, Don MacDougall wrote:
> >>>So, why the
> >>>postinst scripts failed to run before, now becomes an academic matter for
> >>>me.
> >>
> >>Nevertheless, let me point out for the sake of the archives that the answer
> >>was contained in one of your earlier messages:
> >>
> >>On 10/24/2014 3:11 AM, Don MacDougall wrote:
> >>>Can't fork, trying again in 5 seconds at /usr/bin/updmap line 59.
> >>>        7 [main] perl 8088 child_info_fork::abort: unable to remap Fcntl.dll
> >>>to same address as parent (0x2E0000) - try running rebaseall
> >>
> >>The problem is that many of the texlive postinstall scripts run perl
> >>scripts, and these failed as above because rebaseall needed to be run.  I
> >>guess this problem will occur whenever perl and texlive are installed
> >>simultaneously.
> >>
> >>I'm not sure what the solution is.  Would it be hard to tweak setup.exe so
> >>that it runs the autorebase postinstall script before running any others?
> >>Or would this be a bad idea for other reasons?
> >
> >Off the top of my head I don't know how hard that would be, but it
> >doesn't sound like an especially bad idea to me.  Au contraire.
> >
> >The only reasons not to do that would be if an installer script would
> >move DLLs around (Do we have that?  I hope not) or if there's a simpler
> >solution.
> >
> >One thing we could test is if we can't get away without tweaking
> >setup.exe, by changing the dependencies only.  Right now _autorebase
> >requires rebase and dash packages.  Both are in Base anyway, but they
> >pull in more dependencies which result in something like a rat tail of
> >dependencies.  So I'm wondering if tweaking _autorebase' setup.hint file
> >like this:
> It's worth a try.
> >  sdesc: "Run rebaseall automatically"
> >  #external-source: rebase
> >  category: _PostInstallLast
>               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Wouldn't we also have to get rid of this?

This is just a category name, and to the best of my knowledge there's no
special handling in terms of this category name in either setup or
upset.  It just starts with an underscore so that packages in this
category don't show up in setup's package selection by default.


Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the Cygwin mailing list