On Aug 21 11:37, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 05:20:41PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >On Aug 21 11:12, Charles Wilson wrote: > >> Christopher Faylor wrote: > >> > >> > To rephrase: I think it is a bad idea to remove dependencies from > >> > _update-info-dir since so many things rely on it. > >> > >> Unless: > >> > >> 1) all of _update-info-dir's dependencies are already satisfied by the > >> Base category > >> > >> or > >> > >> 2) we carefully map the dependency chains of the basic system-setup > >> packages (cygwin, base-*, a few more?) and deliberately exclude them > >> from getting _update-info-dir added to their dependency list. > >> > >> or > >> > >> 3) somehow add a priority scheme to postinstall scripts, so that in > >> the event of a cycle, setup "starts" traversing the dependency loop at > >> the package with the highest priority. > >> > >> In order of least effort to most, I'd vote #1... > > > >Full ACK. > > If only this was a democracy.
??? > I've made the change I mentioned. Neither bash nor texinfo rely on > _update-info-dir. I don't think this is the right solution. How does that help with other loops? I only checked packages which were in front of the cygwin package in the dependency order for a plain Base install. The list of dependencies for a full install is much bigger. You're fixing single symptoms, rather than taking out the core problem. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat