Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID: <006a01c16e5e$91c9fec0$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
From: "Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To: <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
References: <OE14B5VROXacMj0AGUO000119f7 AT hotmail DOT com> <06a501c16e2a$18a71750$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <3BF4523C DOT 7020801 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20011116010131 DOT GA13068 AT redhat DOT com> <3BF48060 DOT 7010406 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20011116032354 DOT GA14158 AT redhat DOT com>
Subject: Re: nano - packaged and ready for some criticism :)
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 16:21:38 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Nov 2001 05:19:47.0586 (UTC) FILETIME=[4F154620:01C16E5E]


----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
>
> Sure.  If you've got a solution, I have no objections.  I just didn't
> think it was a big deal, either way.
>
> And, ur, I've been one of those screwed up package maintainers.  I
don't
> even currently rebuild dir in any of my packages and I really should.
>
> Or, actually, I think either setup.exe should be intelligent enough to
> do this for you or there should be some way for a package to say
"please
> run this standard bit of machinery for me".

Chuck has made my point about multiple packages doing this.

As for some standard bit of machinery sure... There's this thing called
a postinstall script ;}.

Seriously though, setup would have to call out to ash to run a
dynamically created install-the-info-files script anyway, so having this
done directly makes to me. I've no strong opinion though, with one
caveat: whatever does it , must call install-info (ie no patches to make
setup.exe contain install-info's functionality, thank-you-very-much.)

Rob