On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 06:19:38AM -0700, Eric Blake wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >Redirecting to cygwin-apps, since this is a setup.exe issue. And sorry >for the delayed reply; this arrived back when I was on vacation, and I'm >still trying to plow through my inbox. > >According to Mark Peloquin on 2/18/2007 2:47 AM: >> I recently installed cygwin with some problems. This is the fourth >> installation of Windows where I have installed cygwin, and this has >> happened with this Windows installation twice now. I don't think it's >> a fluke. My guess is that it is only noticeable for new >> installations. > >Only noticeable for new installations, and dependent on the order in which >setup.exe runs postinstall scripts; bash's postinstall MUST run before any >other postinstall that uses /bin/sh. Which version of setup.exe are you >using? > >I know that older setup.exe were broken, and merely executed all scripts >in alphabetical order, so older releases of bash provided the postinstall >as 00bash.sh so it would run first. But I thought that setup.exe had been >changed to execute in dependency order (for example, base-files depends on >bash, so base-files' postinstall scripts should not be attempted until >after bash), so in bash-3.2.9-11 I renamed the postinstall to plain >bash.sh (partly because I converted to cygport, and couldn't figure out >how to make cygport keep the name 00bash.sh). > >Maybe what I should do is upload a new package along the lines of >00run_me_first belonging to the admin category _PostInstallFirst >(mirroring the existing admin category of _PostInstallLast that is >normally hidden from view), and by having bash depend on that, I can >reinsert a postinstall script that will run early enough in new >installations to allow installing packages such as aalib, automake, and >base-files? But it would really be nice to know first of all whether this >is fixed in setup.exe; and if the fix is only in a setup.exe snapshot, we >could really use a release of setup.exe.
This probably goes without saying but if you do that, please test your assumptions about how this would work with setup.exe before it goes live. cgf