On Sun, Mar 23, 2003 at 12:14:36PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: >On Sun, 2003-03-23 at 12:04, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: >> On 23 Mar 2003, Robert Collins wrote: >> > Well IMO yes it's obsolete. As I originally said, I consider the package >> > dependency ordering solution both the permanent and sufficient solution. >> > I always considered script dependencies short term, but if there are >> > still issues (now that the package dependency solution is 'doing the >> > right thing') I'm happy to discussion addressing that by either script >> > depends or tweaks to the package ordering.... >> >> Did we solve the issue of update_info_dir being run last? Otherwise, I >> don't think there are any outstanding issues. > >Thats not an issue AFAIK. It's easy to make happen now - Someone just >needs to offer Chris a patch for the update_info_dir script to have the >packages needing help listed in it's requires: clause. Then setup will >naturally run it after all of them. Note: update_info_dir has *never* >run last, since it was first introduced.
I'm pretty sure it ran last when I first tested it. I haven't been testing it throughout the setup.exe development process, though. However, unless packages are creating .info files on the fly, I don't see why it matters if it runs last. .info files which are created on the fly wouldn't be caught anyway. cgf