On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgrif...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Dan McGee <dpmc...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Allan McRae <al...@archlinux.org> wrote: >>> Aaron Griffin wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Allan McRae <al...@archlinux.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Aaron Griffin wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgrif...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Dan McGee <dpmc...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Aaron Griffin >>>>>>>> <aaronmgrif...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This idea is Thomas', I take no credit, except that I actually wrote >>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>> up. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The idea: >>>>>>>>> texinfo, on install, processes all info files. bash and glibc (and, >>>>>>>>> likely, other packages in core) no longer need to depend on texinfo, >>>>>>>>> but should check for install-info in the scriptlets before running. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> a) user installs bash and glibc. No info files are processed, texinfo >>>>>>>>> not installed >>>>>>>>> user then installs texinfo, all info files are processed >>>>>>>>> b) user installs texinfo first (somehow) >>>>>>>>> user then installs bash, info files processed due to existence of >>>>>>>>> install-info >>>>>>>>> c) user follows case a or b >>>>>>>>> user upgrades bash or glibc, info files processed as normal due to >>>>>>>>> presence of install-info >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Any issues with this? See attached patch. Please review. If possible, >>>>>>>>> this needs to go to core before we release the ISOs. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Seems reasonable for now. Basically any package in core should >>>>>>>> 1) not depend on texinfo >>>>>>>> 2) attempt to call install-info if it has info pages AND install-info >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> found? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yeah >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I guess, technically all packages should check for install-info before >>>>>>> actually doing anything - it's only proper. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Allan, can we get the proto file updated with the -x check (and full >>>>>>> paths) ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Any opinions on this (well, the second email, with the fixed patch) ? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That fix looks good to me. How long does it take to scan all info pages >>>>> when reinstalling texinfo on a system with a decent number of packages >>>>> installed? >>>>> >>>>> I will update the proto file soon. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The "scan all" is only done on _install_ not on upgrade. On upgrade it >>>> just does it's thing with its own info files >>>> >>> >>> OK. I noticed you have use the leading / when using the full path to the >>> install-info binary (i.e. /usr/bin/info-install vs. usr/bin/info-install) >>> Other prototype install scripts do not use the leading slash. Looking in >>> the PKGBUILD man page, it is not specified which is right. So, does this >>> matter and if so, which is actually correct? >> >> We always chroot into the root install directory, and also cwd to /, >> so it is probably better to specify the path without a leading slash. > > Why? If one of those things ever changed, I imaged it'd be the 'cd', > not the chroot part. The absolute path will always work, whereas the > relative path will not. > > Either way though, bikeshedding here - Allan, use your discretion. > > > Anyone want to help me apply this patch today, rebuild, and put these > packages in testing? I can do texinfo and bash, but don't know if > there's anything I need to know about glibc.
Rebuilding everything now. glibc taks a long time 8) For the record, the empty "return" doesn't work. It appears to return the last value of $? in that case, so it still reports the scriptlet failing. "return 0" should be used.
