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

["John Morrison" <john dot r dot morrison at ntlworld dot com>]

> 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>

J.