Re: [PATCH] Postinstall script ordering in setup - take 2

["Max Bowsher" <maxb at ukf dot net>]

John Morrison wrote:
>> From: Igor Pechtchanski
>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, John Morrison wrote:
>>>> From: Max Bowsher
>>>> Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>>>>> Attached is try #2.  This incorporates Rob's comments from
>>>>> <http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-03/msg00041.html>.  I've
>>>>> also refactored FileDesc to handle all dependence processing.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think this would be good as a long-term solution as well.  As I
>>>>> mentioned previously, I don't think we can use the existing
>>>>> package dependence mechanism unless we also somehow track which
>>>>> package contains which postinstall scripts.  Personally, I think
>>>>> storing dependences in the postinstall scripts themselves is
>>>>> cleaner. Opinions?
>>>> 
>>>> Good idea.
>>> 
>>> Definately.
>>> 
>>>> Do we also need a way to mark 'high-priority' scripts?
>>>> i.e. ones that should run before all others.
>>> 
>>> and the ones that should be run only after all others.
>>> J.
>> 
>> John,
>> That's already possible with my patch -- just include all other
>> scripts in the list of dependences, and your script will be run last.
> 
> *All* other scripts?  Even the ones I didn't know about when
> I wrote the script?  <quizical>How?</quizical>

What scenario are you thinking of here?
I don't understand how this would be useful.

Max.