This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-apps
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [HEADSUP] Proposal for change in postinstall script handling (was Re: [RFC] incremental rebase)
- From: Andrew Schulman <schulman dot andrew at epa dot gov>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 14:13:04 -0500
- Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] Proposal for change in postinstall script handling (was Re: [RFC] incremental rebase)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <878uj8wcas dot fsf at Rainer dot invalid> <20141118203534 dot GI3151 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <87lhn8uszd dot fsf at Rainer dot invalid> <20141119092113 dot GA3810 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <87r3wz8lov dot fsf at Rainer dot invalid> <87r3wz8lov.fsf-9O0xPIFIXLULmYpASZe/Uw at public dot gmane dot org> <20141119124732 dot GD3810 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <chpu6ap8mg6eee3nt33dvs3497rh4142d2 at 4ax dot com> <chpu6ap8mg6eee3nt33dvs3497rh4142d2-e09XROE/p8c at public dot gmane dot org> <20141121171849 dot GH3810 at calimero dot vinschen dot de>
> > > I'd like to have some more input here. Maintainers, if you have any
> > > input to this, please follow up.
> >
> > I'm sorry - I didn't follow the previous discussion and am having trouble
> > following this. Could you please restate what's being proposed?
>
> It starts here: https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2014-11/msg00064.html
>
> Two major proposals on the plate:
>
> https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2014-11/msg00086.html
> https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2014-11/msg00098.html
Thanks.
Frankly it all looks overcomplicated to me. The current system of "here's
a postinstall script, run it once some time after the package files are
installed" has always completely met my needs. But I get that other
packages have stronger requirements, so I don't object.
As long as cygport will handle the details of naming the script, maybe from
hints in the cygport file about the priority or order, then it doesn't
matter to me which proposal we use.
Andrew