On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, John Morrison wrote:
> > From: Igor Pechtchanski
> > On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, John Morrison wrote:
> > > > From: Max Bowsher
> > > > Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> > > > > Attached is try #2. This incorporates Rob's comments from
> > > > > <http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-03/msg00041.html>. I've also
> > > > > refactored FileDesc to handle all dependence processing.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think this would be good as a long-term solution as well. As I
> > > > > mentioned previously, I don't think we can use the existing package
> > > > > dependence mechanism unless we also somehow track which package
> > > > > contains which postinstall scripts. Personally, I think storing
> > > > > dependences in the postinstall scripts themselves is cleaner.
> > > > > Opinions?
> > > >
> > > > Good idea.
> > >
> > > Definately.
> > >
> > > > Do we also need a way to mark 'high-priority' scripts?
> > > > i.e. ones that should run before all others.
> > >
> > > and the ones that should be run only after all others.
> > > J.
> >
> > John,
> > That's already possible with my patch -- just include all other scripts in
> > the list of dependences, and your script will be run last.
>
> *All* other scripts? Even the ones I didn't know about when
> I wrote the script? <quizical>How?</quizical>
> J.
Oops, sorry, I see your point. To use Pavel's terminology, IOWTWIWT.
Maybe we could have a reserved script name, something like "|all|" (an
invalid filename)? Then all you say is that your script depends on
"|all|", and that subsumes all other scripts (so it'll be run last). This
would present a problem with circular dependences, though, and if there is
more than one script with that property...
Igor
--
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
|\ _,,,---,,_ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
Oh, boy, virtual memory! Now I'm gonna make myself a really *big* RAMdisk!
-- /usr/games/fortune
