This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-apps@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [PATCH] Postinstall script ordering in setup - take 2
- From: "Max Bowsher" <maxb at ukf dot net>
- To: "John Morrison" <john dot r dot morrison at ntlworld dot com>,<cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:59:22 -0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Postinstall script ordering in setup - take 2
- References: <NCEBJJFMCAOKNNABBFIMIEBMDCAA.john.r.morrison@ntlworld.com>
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.