On 5 Mar 2003, Robert Collins wrote:
> I.e. if package foo has an install script depending on a script found in
> package bar, setup.ini has to list foo requiring bar. Then in the script
> we list foo-install requiring bar-utility to have completed first.
>
> Using the packages as dependencies we can build the same topological
> tree based on the packages that will end up as installed (Because we do
> know which package has which postinstall script).
Yes, but using scripts is more fine-grained.
> Re-running install scripts every time, when a package has not changed,
> is bad IMO, because we haven't made any requirements for idempotent
> behaviour. If a package needs something to occur because it's changed
> it, it should trigger that (or, for generics like info pages setup
> should observe the occurence and trigger the action).
Umm, the patch I submitted won't do that. It will only re-run the script
if it exists. If the script exists with ".done" after it, it'll assume
the script has already run, and won't re-run it.
> Thus - I think this is a short term bandaid, because it increases work,
> not decreases it, and there is a better solution out there, as shown by
> the other package managers.
>
> Rob
I agree. If the package dependence mechanism becomes more fine-grained,
then we could certainly merge the two.
Igor
--
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
|\ _,,,---,,_ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
Oh, boy, virtual memory! Now I'm gonna make myself a really *big* RAMdisk!
-- /usr/games/fortune
