> From: Max Bowsher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > John Morrison wrote: > >> From: Igor Pechtchanski > >> On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, John Morrison wrote: > >>>> From: Max Bowsher > >>>> Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > >>>>> Attached is try #2. This incorporates Rob's comments from > >>>>> <http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-03/msg00041.html>. I've > >>>>> also refactored FileDesc to handle all dependence processing. > >>>>> > >>>>> I think this would be good as a long-term solution as well. As I > >>>>> mentioned previously, I don't think we can use the existing > >>>>> package dependence mechanism unless we also somehow track which > >>>>> package contains which postinstall scripts. Personally, I think > >>>>> storing dependences in the postinstall scripts themselves is > >>>>> cleaner. Opinions? > >>>> > >>>> Good idea. > >>> > >>> Definately. > >>> > >>>> Do we also need a way to mark 'high-priority' scripts? > >>>> i.e. ones that should run before all others. > >>> > >>> and the ones that should be run only after all others. > >>> J. > >> > >> John, > >> That's already possible with my patch -- just include all other > >> scripts in the list of dependences, and your script will be run last. > > > > *All* other scripts? Even the ones I didn't know about when > > I wrote the script? <quizical>How?</quizical> > > What scenario are you thinking of here? > I don't understand how this would be useful.
I was thinking of the defaults post install script, but, thinking about it I got my logic twisted. defaults doesn't depend on the other scripts they depend on it. Never mind. Sorry for the noise! J.