This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-apps@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Default script installation
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 06:20:08PM -0000, Max Bowsher wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 05:49:10PM -0000, Max Bowsher wrote:
>>> Forwarding to the list:
>>> John Morrison wrote:
>>>>> From: Max Bowsher
>>>>>
>>>>> John Morrison wrote:
>>>>>> <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-01/msg00059.html>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Was anything ever decided about this? Pierre wants
>>>>>> me to update the /etc/profile package which would
>>>>>> be an ideal first candidate for this.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can't guarantee that autodep packages will be installed at the
>>>>> right time.
>>>>>
>>>>> How about including a copy of the update-defaults postinstall
>>>>> script
>>>>> in every package that installs files to /etc/defaults ?
>>>>
>>>> I didn't want to force folks to do anything :(
>>>
>>> And now replying:
>>>
>>> The autodep method just about works for Base packages, but is simply
>>> not an option for any non-Base packages. So if any non-Base packages
>>> are to use /etc/defaults/, it's really not feasible at all.
>>
>> Why does it have anything to do with Base packages? We know it isn't
>> a perfect solution. We've discussed this to death.
>
>Like this:
>- User installs Cygwin. Current version of update-defaults runs.
>- User later installs another package (non-Base) It's /etc/defaults files
>are not copied.
>- Problem.
Like this:
- User installs Cygwin, selects base and 27 other packages. Current version
of update-defaults runs.
- User later instlls another package (non-Base). Its /etc/defaults files
are not copied.
i.e., it has nothing to do with Base and this is what we have already
discussed to death.
>If the package is Base, it will already have been installed, hence less of a
>problem.
>
>> It would probably be slightly more perfect if 1) the postinstall
>> scripts were run in a known order and 2) dependencies were tracked
>> during local installs.
>
>1) The order is known, but perhaps not ideal.
What's the order? I thought it was FindNextFile order.
>2) They are.
Ok. I stand corrected.
>> Given the glacial progress of setup.exe development, I guess neither
>> is likely to happen soon.
>
>That was a hint, wasn't it :-)
Yeah, and a real subtle one at that. I'm not really pleased with the number
of setup.exe problems we seem to be seeing. I don't know what to do about it,
though.
cgf