> On Nov 19 12:38, Achim Gratz wrote: > > Corinna Vinschen writes: > > >> In any case, this is mainly about putting the mechanism in place or > > >> rather to specify it. Making it usable would require support from > > >> cygport and upset/genini. > > > > > > Not upset, it seems. IIUC the stratumification can firmly stay in > > > setup' s hands with some support from cygport. Upset wouldn't even > > > notice it. > > > > >> Using hidden groups (like the non-functional > > >> _PostInstallLast we already have) would be an obvious way to do that. > > > > > > Isn't that moot then? Stratum z would do it for free... > > > > In both cases the use of the prefix is what decides the stratum. > > Arguably that could be made explicit in setup.hint instead, but that > > would require extension of the data format and changes to tools that use > > the data. As long as we're manually assigning those strata (or farming > > this out into cygport) then no such support would be needed indeed. > > > > ANother question: setup is used by other projects it seems. How do we > > ensure they either agree with us or are unaffected by this change? > > > > > Makes sense. And the naming convention? No chance for collisions with > > > existing scripts? > > > > The Cygwin Package Search says that no such postinstall scripts > > currently exist, so I'd say we're GTG with the prefix idea. > > I'd like to have some more input here. Maintainers, if you have any > input to this, please follow up.
I'm sorry - I didn't follow the previous discussion and am having trouble following this. Could you please restate what's being proposed?