This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-apps
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Multiple pending setup patches
On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 02:12:14PM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote:
>Igor, I'm very thankful to have patches from you, and I appreciate that
>you're contributing. I seriously need to work on being more timely
>about this.
>
>Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>
>> Here's a list of setup patches I submitted in September:
>>
>> <http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2005-09/msg00502.html>
>
>This looks OK. The solution I had in mind was to connect once to get
>the setup.bz2, then disconnect, and create a new connection after
>package selection. But your method is much simpler.
>
>> <http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2005-09/msg00503.html>
>> (GTG: <http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2005-09/msg00514.html>)
>
>I suppose this is OK too. The only reservation I have is that it
>imposes a new requirement on all package maintainers: that if your
>package contains a postinstall script you must include bash in the
>"requires" line. That is something that I think many packagers will get
>wrong. It's non-obvious because both bash and ash are in category Base
>and can be assumed to exist on any system. It might be better if setup
>could figure this out on its own -- when unpacking the package if it
>sees a .sh file in /etc/postinstall, it should add bash to the
>dependencies if not there already. But that's probably a bit overkill.
I don't think it's overkill at all. Anything we can do to lighten the
load is good. It would also be nice to check for #!/bin/sh or #!/bin/bash.
>I have been wanting to release a new setup with these and the other
>minor fixes that have gone into it since the last release. However,
>there are two things I'd like to resolve first:
Is there any way that my proposal of adding a check to see if the currently
selected mirror is in the list of mirrors and issuing a pop-up warning if
not, could be implemented?
I suppose that this would have to be defeatable for people who want to
use setup.exe for in-house mirrors but I'm not too worried about that.
If people don't like this feature they can build their own version of
setup.exe.
cgf