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 11:21:08 -0500
- Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] Proposal for change in postinstall script handling (was Re: [RFC] incremental rebase)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5468D4FC dot 6000400 at cornell dot edu> <87y4rbhuwa dot fsf at Rainer dot invalid> <5469D55C dot 10506 at cornell dot edu> <87d28lodar dot fsf at Rainer dot invalid> <20141118104947 dot GY3151 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <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>
> On Nov 19 12:38, Achim Gratz wrote:
> > Corinna Vinschen writes:
> > >> In any case, this is mainly about putting the mechanism in place or
> > >> rather to specify it. Making it usable would require support from
> > >> cygport and upset/genini.
> > >
> > > Not upset, it seems. IIUC the stratumification can firmly stay in
> > > setup' s hands with some support from cygport. Upset wouldn't even
> > > notice it.
> >
> > >> Using hidden groups (like the non-functional
> > >> _PostInstallLast we already have) would be an obvious way to do that.
> > >
> > > Isn't that moot then? Stratum z would do it for free...
> >
> > In both cases the use of the prefix is what decides the stratum.
> > Arguably that could be made explicit in setup.hint instead, but that
> > would require extension of the data format and changes to tools that use
> > the data. As long as we're manually assigning those strata (or farming
> > this out into cygport) then no such support would be needed indeed.
> >
> > ANother question: setup is used by other projects it seems. How do we
> > ensure they either agree with us or are unaffected by this change?
> >
> > > Makes sense. And the naming convention? No chance for collisions with
> > > existing scripts?
> >
> > The Cygwin Package Search says that no such postinstall scripts
> > currently exist, so I'd say we're GTG with the prefix idea.
>
> 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?