Re: [HEADSUP] Proposal for change in postinstall script handling (was Re: [RFC] incremental rebase)

2014-11-26 Thread Achim Gratz
Here are a couple more things I#d like to add/change: 1. The code to run batch scripts actually relies on CMD.EXE. It seems appropriate to either require a .cmd suffix for those scripts or at least optionally recognize it. 2. Batch files started via CMD.EXE use full buffering. I'm not sure

Re: [HEADSUP] Proposal for change in postinstall script handling (was Re: [RFC] incremental rebase)

2014-11-26 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Nov 26 22:07, Achim Gratz wrote: Here are a couple more things I#d like to add/change: 1. The code to run batch scripts actually relies on CMD.EXE. It seems appropriate to either require a .cmd suffix for those scripts or at least optionally recognize it. Sounds right to me, as long

Re: [HEADSUP] Proposal for change in postinstall script handling (was Re: [RFC] incremental rebase)

2014-11-21 Thread Andrew Schulman
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

Re: [HEADSUP] Proposal for change in postinstall script handling (was Re: [RFC] incremental rebase)

2014-11-21 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Nov 21 11:21, Andrew Schulman wrote: 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,

Re: [HEADSUP] Proposal for change in postinstall script handling (was Re: [RFC] incremental rebase)

2014-11-21 Thread Andrew Schulman
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? It starts here:

Re: [HEADSUP] Proposal for change in postinstall script handling (was Re: [RFC] incremental rebase)

2014-11-21 Thread Achim Gratz
Andrew Schulman writes: I'm sorry - I didn't follow the previous discussion and am having trouble following this. Could you please restate what's being proposed? TL;DR: Everyone who has been happy with the current way of how install and postinstall works has nothing to fear or do. The rest

Re: [HEADSUP] Proposal for change in postinstall script handling (was Re: [RFC] incremental rebase)

2014-11-21 Thread Andrew Schulman
Andrew Schulman writes: I'm sorry - I didn't follow the previous discussion and am having trouble following this. Could you please restate what's being proposed? TL;DR: Everyone who has been happy with the current way of how install and postinstall works has nothing to fear or do.

[HEADSUP] Proposal for change in postinstall script handling (was Re: [RFC] incremental rebase)

2014-11-19 Thread Corinna Vinschen
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