Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 14:37:20 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: nano - packaged and ready for some criticism :)
Message-ID: <20011116193720.GL17035@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
References: <OE14B5VROXacMj0AGUO000119f7 AT hotmail DOT com> <06a501c16e2a$18a71750$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <3BF4523C DOT 7020801 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20011116010131 DOT GA13068 AT redhat DOT com> <3BF48060 DOT 7010406 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20011116032354 DOT GA14158 AT redhat DOT com> <006a01c16e5e$91c9fec0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <006a01c16e5e$91c9fec0$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Fri, Nov 16, 2001 at 04:21:38PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
>>
>> Sure.  If you've got a solution, I have no objections.  I just didn't
>> think it was a big deal, either way.
>>
>> And, ur, I've been one of those screwed up package maintainers.  I
>don't
>> even currently rebuild dir in any of my packages and I really should.
>>
>> Or, actually, I think either setup.exe should be intelligent enough to
>> do this for you or there should be some way for a package to say
>"please
>> run this standard bit of machinery for me".
>
>Chuck has made my point about multiple packages doing this.
>
>As for some standard bit of machinery sure... There's this thing called
>a postinstall script ;}.
>
>Seriously though, setup would have to call out to ash to run a
>dynamically created install-the-info-files script anyway, so having this
>done directly makes to me. I've no strong opinion though, with one
>caveat: whatever does it , must call install-info (ie no patches to make
>setup.exe contain install-info's functionality, thank-you-very-much.)

Um, no.  I don't think that anyone wants setup.exe to become a replacement
for install-info.

I just don't want to have to write my own 'dir' file updater.

I'm not convinced that setup.exe couldn't detect certain common things like
installing .info files and "do the right thing", either.

cgf