Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Message-ID: <016f01c17d95$d1c4cfa0$0200a8c0@lifelesswks> From: "Robert Collins" To: , "Jan Nieuwenhuizen" References: <20011203212637 DOT GA29013 AT redhat DOT com> <3C0D54FC DOT A6FDDA21 AT t-online DOT de><20011205005932 DOT GA12063 AT redhat DOT com> Subject: Re: RFP: texmf Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 01:04:55 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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" > 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