On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Dan McGee <dpmc...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Allan McRae <al...@archlinux.org> wrote: >> Aaron Griffin wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Allan McRae <al...@archlinux.org> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Aaron Griffin wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgrif...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Dan McGee <dpmc...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Aaron Griffin >>>>>>> <aaronmgrif...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This idea is Thomas', I take no credit, except that I actually wrote >>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>> up. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The idea: >>>>>>>> texinfo, on install, processes all info files. bash and glibc (and, >>>>>>>> likely, other packages in core) no longer need to depend on texinfo, >>>>>>>> but should check for install-info in the scriptlets before running. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> a) user installs bash and glibc. No info files are processed, texinfo >>>>>>>> not installed >>>>>>>> user then installs texinfo, all info files are processed >>>>>>>> b) user installs texinfo first (somehow) >>>>>>>> user then installs bash, info files processed due to existence of >>>>>>>> install-info >>>>>>>> c) user follows case a or b >>>>>>>> user upgrades bash or glibc, info files processed as normal due to >>>>>>>> presence of install-info >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Any issues with this? See attached patch. Please review. If possible, >>>>>>>> this needs to go to core before we release the ISOs. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Seems reasonable for now. Basically any package in core should >>>>>>> 1) not depend on texinfo >>>>>>> 2) attempt to call install-info if it has info pages AND install-info >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> found? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Yeah >>>>>> >>>>>> I guess, technically all packages should check for install-info before >>>>>> actually doing anything - it's only proper. >>>>>> >>>>>> Allan, can we get the proto file updated with the -x check (and full >>>>>> paths) ? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Any opinions on this (well, the second email, with the fixed patch) ? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> That fix looks good to me. How long does it take to scan all info pages >>>> when reinstalling texinfo on a system with a decent number of packages >>>> installed? >>>> >>>> I will update the proto file soon. >>>> >>> >>> The "scan all" is only done on _install_ not on upgrade. On upgrade it >>> just does it's thing with its own info files >>> >> >> OK. I noticed you have use the leading / when using the full path to the >> install-info binary (i.e. /usr/bin/info-install vs. usr/bin/info-install) >> Other prototype install scripts do not use the leading slash. Looking in >> the PKGBUILD man page, it is not specified which is right. So, does this >> matter and if so, which is actually correct? > > We always chroot into the root install directory, and also cwd to /, > so it is probably better to specify the path without a leading slash.
Why? If one of those things ever changed, I imaged it'd be the 'cd', not the chroot part. The absolute path will always work, whereas the relative path will not. Either way though, bikeshedding here - Allan, use your discretion. Anyone want to help me apply this patch today, rebuild, and put these packages in testing? I can do texinfo and bash, but don't know if there's anything I need to know about glibc.
