FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 09-21-2008, 05:19 AM
Eric Belanger
 
Default Add texinfo in base group?

Hi,

I just want to point out FS#11501. Basically, as we are now adding info
pages to packages, we are using a .install file which runs install-info.
This tool is part of texinfo. Therefore we should either add a dependency
on texinfo to all these packages or alternatively add texinfo to the
base group.


Personnally, I prefer adding texinfo to the base group. It is simpler and
would make more sense as the tools for the man pages are already in base.
Let me know what you think. texinfo is currently out-of-date so I could do
that change at the same time.


BTW, texinfo provides its own info pages. Currently these files are
included in the package but there's no .install script. If I add a script,
then technically, it'll need to depend on itself. I'm thinking that it
might cause problems for users who are installing it for the first time or
with the installer. I could bypass this issue by not running install-info
on post-install but only on post-upgrade and removal. Any
better idea/comments?


Thanks
Eric

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
 
Old 09-21-2008, 06:10 AM
Allan McRae
 
Default Add texinfo in base group?

Eric Belanger wrote:

Hi,

I just want to point out FS#11501. Basically, as we are now adding
info pages to packages, we are using a .install file which runs
install-info. This tool is part of texinfo. Therefore we should either
add a dependency on texinfo to all these packages or alternatively add
texinfo to the base group.


Personnally, I prefer adding texinfo to the base group. It is simpler
and would make more sense as the tools for the man pages are already
in base.
Let me know what you think. texinfo is currently out-of-date so I
could do that change at the same time.




Seems fine to me.

BTW, texinfo provides its own info pages. Currently these files are
included in the package but there's no .install script. If I add a
script, then technically, it'll need to depend on itself. I'm thinking
that it might cause problems for users who are installing it for the
first time or with the installer. I could bypass this issue by not
running install-info on post-install but only on post-upgrade and
removal. Any better idea/comments?


I do not think that is a problem as the package files have already been
installed to their proper place before post-install function from the
.install file is called. Just make sure you use the full path to the
install-info binary.


Allan
 
Old 09-21-2008, 08:41 AM
Thomas Bächler
 
Default Add texinfo in base group?

Eric Belanger schrieb:
BTW, texinfo provides its own info pages. Currently these files are
included in the package but there's no .install script. If I add a
script, then technically, it'll need to depend on itself. I'm thinking
that it might cause problems for users who are installing it for the
first time or with the installer. I could bypass this issue by not
running install-info on post-install but only on post-upgrade and
removal. Any better idea/comments?


That doesn't make sense to me.
 
Old 09-21-2008, 02:45 PM
"Dan McGee"
 
Default Add texinfo in base group?

On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 12:19 AM, Eric Belanger
<belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just want to point out FS#11501. Basically, as we are now adding info
> pages to packages, we are using a .install file which runs install-info.
> This tool is part of texinfo. Therefore we should either add a dependency on
> texinfo to all these packages or alternatively add texinfo to the base
> group.
>
> Personnally, I prefer adding texinfo to the base group. It is simpler and
> would make more sense as the tools for the man pages are already in base.
> Let me know what you think. texinfo is currently out-of-date so I could do
> that change at the same time.

+1

> BTW, texinfo provides its own info pages. Currently these files are included
> in the package but there's no .install script. If I add a script, then
> technically, it'll need to depend on itself. I'm thinking that it might
> cause problems for users who are installing it for the first time or with
> the installer. I could bypass this issue by not running install-info on
> post-install but only on post-upgrade and removal. Any better idea/comments?

It is post-install, not pre-install, so there should be no issues at
all running it.
 
Old 09-21-2008, 06:52 PM
Eric Belanger
 
Default Add texinfo in base group?

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008, Dan McGee wrote:


On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 12:19 AM, Eric Belanger
<belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:

Hi,

I just want to point out FS#11501. Basically, as we are now adding info
pages to packages, we are using a .install file which runs install-info.
This tool is part of texinfo. Therefore we should either add a dependency on
texinfo to all these packages or alternatively add texinfo to the base
group.

Personnally, I prefer adding texinfo to the base group. It is simpler and
would make more sense as the tools for the man pages are already in base.
Let me know what you think. texinfo is currently out-of-date so I could do
that change at the same time.


+1


BTW, texinfo provides its own info pages. Currently these files are included
in the package but there's no .install script. If I add a script, then
technically, it'll need to depend on itself. I'm thinking that it might
cause problems for users who are installing it for the first time or with
the installer. I could bypass this issue by not running install-info on
post-install but only on post-upgrade and removal. Any better idea/comments?


It is post-install, not pre-install, so there should be no issues at
all running it.



I was probably confusing pre-install with post-install for some reason.
I realize now that adding the standard .install file to handle info
files won't cause any problems.


Eric

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
 
Old 09-22-2008, 04:01 AM
"Aaron Griffin"
 
Default Add texinfo in base group?

On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 12:19 AM, Eric Belanger
<belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just want to point out FS#11501. Basically, as we are now adding info
> pages to packages, we are using a .install file which runs install-info.
> This tool is part of texinfo. Therefore we should either add a dependency on
> texinfo to all these packages or alternatively add texinfo to the base
> group.
>
> Personnally, I prefer adding texinfo to the base group. It is simpler and
> would make more sense as the tools for the man pages are already in base.
> Let me know what you think. texinfo is currently out-of-date so I could do
> that change at the same time.

That sounds ok to me, but I *do* want to point out something that
we've some of us have been irritated about for some time - even IF we
assume all of base is installed, we should still probably have proper
dependency info. I think we should actually do both.... put it in
base, AND make sure we maintain proper deps
 
Old 09-22-2008, 05:45 AM
Eric Belanger
 
Default Add texinfo in base group?

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008, Aaron Griffin wrote:


On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 12:19 AM, Eric Belanger
<belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:

Hi,

I just want to point out FS#11501. Basically, as we are now adding info
pages to packages, we are using a .install file which runs install-info.
This tool is part of texinfo. Therefore we should either add a dependency on
texinfo to all these packages or alternatively add texinfo to the base
group.

Personnally, I prefer adding texinfo to the base group. It is simpler and
would make more sense as the tools for the man pages are already in base.
Let me know what you think. texinfo is currently out-of-date so I could do
that change at the same time.


That sounds ok to me, but I *do* want to point out something that
we've some of us have been irritated about for some time - even IF we
assume all of base is installed, we should still probably have proper
dependency info. I think we should actually do both.... put it in
base, AND make sure we maintain proper deps




Yes, doing both would be ideal. The current packages with a missing
depends on texinfo:


/var/abs/core/binutils
/var/abs/core/gcc
/var/abs/core/glibc
/var/abs/core/libgcrypt
/var/abs/core/libtool
/var/abs/core/nano
/var/abs/extra/enblend-enfuse
/var/abs/extra/gdb
/var/abs/extra/libidl2
/var/abs/extra/libtasn1
/var/abs/testing/gmp
/var/abs/testing/libgcrypt
/var/abs/testing/mpfr

We should fix the testing packages that are waiting for signoff. As for
the rest, they include big packages (i.e. toolchain) that needs to go to
testing first. So updating them to just fix the missing depends might be
too much work. I could just add the texinfo dependency in svn so it
doesn't get forgotten the next time we update these packages.


--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
 
Old 10-01-2008, 01:40 AM
Eric Belanger
 
Default Add texinfo in base group?

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008, Eric Belanger wrote:


On Sun, 21 Sep 2008, Aaron Griffin wrote:


On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 12:19 AM, Eric Belanger
<belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:

Hi,

I just want to point out FS#11501. Basically, as we are now adding info
pages to packages, we are using a .install file which runs install-info.
This tool is part of texinfo. Therefore we should either add a dependency
on

texinfo to all these packages or alternatively add texinfo to the base
group.

Personnally, I prefer adding texinfo to the base group. It is simpler and
would make more sense as the tools for the man pages are already in base.
Let me know what you think. texinfo is currently out-of-date so I could do
that change at the same time.


That sounds ok to me, but I *do* want to point out something that
we've some of us have been irritated about for some time - even IF we
assume all of base is installed, we should still probably have proper
dependency info. I think we should actually do both.... put it in
base, AND make sure we maintain proper deps




Yes, doing both would be ideal. The current packages with a missing depends
on texinfo:


/var/abs/core/binutils
/var/abs/core/gcc
/var/abs/core/glibc
/var/abs/core/libgcrypt
/var/abs/core/libtool
/var/abs/core/nano
/var/abs/extra/enblend-enfuse
/var/abs/extra/gdb
/var/abs/extra/libidl2
/var/abs/extra/libtasn1
/var/abs/testing/gmp
/var/abs/testing/libgcrypt
/var/abs/testing/mpfr

We should fix the testing packages that are waiting for signoff. As for the
rest, they include big packages (i.e. toolchain) that needs to go to testing
first. So updating them to just fix the missing depends might be too much
work. I could just add the texinfo dependency in svn so it doesn't get
forgotten the next time we update these packages.




FYI, I've added the texinfo depends for the above packages where it hasn't
been fixed yet. This was only done in the svn so it won't be forgotten
the next time these are updated.


--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 11:30 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org