Re: Heads-up: postinstall scripts and PATH (Attn all packagemaintainers)

[Robert Collins <rbcollins at cygwin dot com>]

On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 07:49, Harold L Hunt II wrote:

> I suggest that it does make sense to put in an explicit dependency on 
> some such packages, though perhaps not all such packages, because if a 
> user already has ghostscript-x11 and ghostscript-base installed, then 
> manually uninstalls ghostscript-base, then selects xfig, I believe that 
> ghostscript-base will not be reselected. 

Thats wrong. Setup traverses the dependency tree. 

>  Rather than field bug reports, 
> I would prefer to just prevent that from happening.  On the other hand, 
> if setup.exe always does a full recalculation of dependecy trees when 
> selecting a new package, then this will never be a problem and I can 
> indeed remove ghostscript-base from the dependency list. 

It does.

>  Of course, I 
> am lazy, so I have not tested this case recently.

http://www.cygwin.com/setup.html
"
A package can rely on multiple other packages. Hierarchical dependencies
should work correctly, however, it is best to always include specific
dependencies, i.e. don't drop 'bar' from your dependency list if your
package requires it, even if you are including 'foo' which relies on
'bar'.

Conversely, do not include package dependencies of dependent packages in
your dependency list. If you think that another package has an incorrect
dependency list, send email to cygwin-apps noting that fact.
"

Rob
-- 
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part