This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [PATCH] Postinstall script ordering in setup - take 2
- From: Igor Pechtchanski <pechtcha at cs dot nyu dot edu>
- To: Max Bowsher <maxb at ukf dot net>
- Cc: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:28:31 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Postinstall script ordering in setup - take 2
- Reply-to: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Max Bowsher wrote:
> 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.
> Do we also need a way to mark 'high-priority' scripts?
> i.e. ones that should run before all others.
> I'm thinking about passwd-grp.sh mainly.
Depends on where you mark it. If we go by name, just have setup.exe be
aware of those names, and simply make that script a default dependence
(i.e., always add that script to the dependence list for all others). If
you're thinking of marking it in the script itself, then it is pretty
implausible, since setup will then have to parse *all* of the postinstall
scripts *every time* even one of them has to run...
If setup had stored state or a config file, we could store the names of
those "high-priority" scripts in there, rather than in the code...
|\ _,,,---,,_ pechtcha at cs dot nyu dot edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ igor at watson dot ibm dot com
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
Oh, boy, virtual memory! Now I'm gonna make myself a really *big* RAMdisk!