This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

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:
>>>>>> <>
>>>>>> 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
>> 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,


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]