Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender:	cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID:	<016f01c17d95$d1c4cfa0$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
From:	"Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To:	<cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>, "Jan Nieuwenhuizen" <janneke AT gnu DOT org>
References:	<m3zo50xawc DOT fsf AT appel DOT lilypond DOT org><20011203212637 DOT GA29013 AT redhat DOT com><m3vgfox8k8 DOT fsf AT appel DOT lilypond DOT org> <3C0D54FC DOT A6FDDA21 AT t-online DOT de><m3vgfmzduo DOT fsf AT appel DOT lilypond DOT org><20011205005932 DOT GA12063 AT redhat DOT com> <m3r8qazcn6 DOT fsf AT appel DOT lilypond DOT org>
Subject:	Re: RFP: texmf
Date:	Thu, 6 Dec 2001 01:04:55 +1100
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-OriginalArrivalTime:	05 Dec 2001 14:04:56.0761 (UTC) FILETIME=[D1DD1290:01C17D95]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jan Nieuwenhuizen" <janneke AT gnu DOT org>


> How long would it take to phase them out?  A fresh setup.ini that
> doesn't mention tetex-beta would make tetex-beta invisible?  Hmm, but
> then we'd need a 'conflicts:' setup hint or so, and locally cached
> setup.ini's could generate trouble.

The package will not disappear if it's not in setup.ini. It's still
present in installed.db. The _only_ way to force an uninstall of a
package is when we support conflicts: which will come AFTER we support
package-dependency-install-oredering (Which BTW allows the installation
of an empty package to replace the old one as a safe upgrade path).

> Anyway, the best part is the fact that tetex-beta/bin gets a rebuild,
> and we're talking.  Of course, the renaming should be a bonus, not a
> pain.

Yes.

> And it would need some testing too.  Phasing-out packages will be a
> needed feature at some point, but maybe not highest priority now.
> What about pre/postremove scripts, eg?

Testing? Thats what the end users do isn't it :}

Rob

- Raw text -