On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 11:34:54PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: >Christopher Faylor wrote: > > >>>*Well* beyond the newbie's capability. But "reinstall the info package" >>>or "run fix-info" is nice and simple. >>> >> >>Sure. If you've got a solution, I have no objections. I just didn't >>think it was a big deal, either way. >> >>And, ur, I've been one of those screwed up package maintainers. I don't >>even currently rebuild dir in any of my packages and I really should. >> >>Or, actually, I think either setup.exe should be intelligent enough to >>do this for you or there should be some way for a package to say "please >>run this standard bit of machinery for me". > > >You mean setup.exe itself should do: > if tarball contains /usr/info/*, then > install-info --dir-file=/usr/info/dir --info-file=$(each one) > end > >I disagree. AFAIK, RPM doesn't do this. I believe you have to do: > >%post >install-info .....
I wasn't really advocating a method. I was pointing out that having n package maintainers write n scripts to rebuild /usr/ingo/dir was not a structured approach to the problem. Probably what we need is something like RPM's /usr/lib/rpm directory. We can put scripts there that can be called automatically. So, a package which produces info files could have a postinstall.sh file which runs /etc/setup/scripts/update-dir or something. Actually, it would be "really nice" if the package didn't have to even have a postinstall.sh and could just specify that /etc/setup/scripts/update-dir *was* the file to run after package installation. I also want to point out that setup.exe is not exactly equal to RPM, IMO. It's more like the Red Hat 7.x installater.. Or, it's a combination installer/up2date. I wouldn't be surprised to find that Red Hat's installer redbuilt 'dir' for you automatically. I wouldn't expect that every use of 'rpm' would do this for you, though, obviously. cgf