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 01-28-2009, 12:02 AM
Aaron Griffin
 
Default Fix texinfo-based depcycles in core

On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
> Aaron Griffin wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This idea is Thomas', I take no credit, except that I actually wrote it
>>>>> up.
>>>>>
>>>>> The idea:
>>>>> texinfo, on install, processes all info files. bash and glibc (and,
>>>>> likely, other packages in core) no longer need to depend on texinfo,
>>>>> but should check for install-info in the scriptlets before running.
>>>>>
>>>>> a) user installs bash and glibc. No info files are processed, texinfo
>>>>> not installed
>>>>> user then installs texinfo, all info files are processed
>>>>> b) user installs texinfo first (somehow)
>>>>> user then installs bash, info files processed due to existence of
>>>>> install-info
>>>>> c) user follows case a or b
>>>>> user upgrades bash or glibc, info files processed as normal due to
>>>>> presence of install-info
>>>>>
>>>>> Any issues with this? See attached patch. Please review. If possible,
>>>>> this needs to go to core before we release the ISOs.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Seems reasonable for now. Basically any package in core should
>>>> 1) not depend on texinfo
>>>> 2) attempt to call install-info if it has info pages AND install-info is
>>>> found?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah
>>>
>>> I guess, technically all packages should check for install-info before
>>> actually doing anything - it's only proper.
>>>
>>> Allan, can we get the proto file updated with the -x check (and full
>>> paths) ?
>>>
>>
>> Any opinions on this (well, the second email, with the fixed patch) ?
>>
>
> That fix looks good to me. How long does it take to scan all info pages
> when reinstalling texinfo on a system with a decent number of packages
> installed?
>
> I will update the proto file soon.

The "scan all" is only done on _install_ not on upgrade. On upgrade it
just does it's thing with its own info files
 
Old 01-28-2009, 02:44 PM
Allan McRae
 
Default Fix texinfo-based depcycles in core

Aaron Griffin wrote:

On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:


Aaron Griffin wrote:


On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>
wrote:



On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:



On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>
wrote:



This idea is Thomas', I take no credit, except that I actually wrote it
up.

The idea:
texinfo, on install, processes all info files. bash and glibc (and,
likely, other packages in core) no longer need to depend on texinfo,
but should check for install-info in the scriptlets before running.

a) user installs bash and glibc. No info files are processed, texinfo
not installed
user then installs texinfo, all info files are processed
b) user installs texinfo first (somehow)
user then installs bash, info files processed due to existence of
install-info
c) user follows case a or b
user upgrades bash or glibc, info files processed as normal due to
presence of install-info

Any issues with this? See attached patch. Please review. If possible,
this needs to go to core before we release the ISOs.



Seems reasonable for now. Basically any package in core should
1) not depend on texinfo
2) attempt to call install-info if it has info pages AND install-info is
found?



Yeah

I guess, technically all packages should check for install-info before
actually doing anything - it's only proper.

Allan, can we get the proto file updated with the -x check (and full
paths) ?



Any opinions on this (well, the second email, with the fixed patch) ?



That fix looks good to me. How long does it take to scan all info pages
when reinstalling texinfo on a system with a decent number of packages
installed?

I will update the proto file soon.



The "scan all" is only done on _install_ not on upgrade. On upgrade it
just does it's thing with its own info files



OK. I noticed you have use the leading / when using the full path to
the install-info binary (i.e. /usr/bin/info-install vs.
usr/bin/info-install) Other prototype install scripts do not use the
leading slash. Looking in the PKGBUILD man page, it is not specified
which is right. So, does this matter and if so, which is actually correct?


Allan
 
Old 01-28-2009, 02:55 PM
Dan McGee
 
Default Fix texinfo-based depcycles in core

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
> Aaron Griffin wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Aaron Griffin wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Aaron Griffin
>>>>>> <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This idea is Thomas', I take no credit, except that I actually wrote
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The idea:
>>>>>>> texinfo, on install, processes all info files. bash and glibc (and,
>>>>>>> likely, other packages in core) no longer need to depend on texinfo,
>>>>>>> but should check for install-info in the scriptlets before running.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a) user installs bash and glibc. No info files are processed, texinfo
>>>>>>> not installed
>>>>>>> user then installs texinfo, all info files are processed
>>>>>>> b) user installs texinfo first (somehow)
>>>>>>> user then installs bash, info files processed due to existence of
>>>>>>> install-info
>>>>>>> c) user follows case a or b
>>>>>>> user upgrades bash or glibc, info files processed as normal due to
>>>>>>> presence of install-info
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any issues with this? See attached patch. Please review. If possible,
>>>>>>> this needs to go to core before we release the ISOs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seems reasonable for now. Basically any package in core should
>>>>>> 1) not depend on texinfo
>>>>>> 2) attempt to call install-info if it has info pages AND install-info
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> found?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess, technically all packages should check for install-info before
>>>>> actually doing anything - it's only proper.
>>>>>
>>>>> Allan, can we get the proto file updated with the -x check (and full
>>>>> paths) ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Any opinions on this (well, the second email, with the fixed patch) ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> That fix looks good to me. How long does it take to scan all info pages
>>> when reinstalling texinfo on a system with a decent number of packages
>>> installed?
>>>
>>> I will update the proto file soon.
>>>
>>
>> The "scan all" is only done on _install_ not on upgrade. On upgrade it
>> just does it's thing with its own info files
>>
>
> OK. I noticed you have use the leading / when using the full path to the
> install-info binary (i.e. /usr/bin/info-install vs. usr/bin/info-install)
> Other prototype install scripts do not use the leading slash. Looking in
> the PKGBUILD man page, it is not specified which is right. So, does this
> matter and if so, which is actually correct?

We always chroot into the root install directory, and also cwd to /,
so it is probably better to specify the path without a leading slash.

-Dan
 
Old 01-28-2009, 04:57 PM
Aaron Griffin
 
Default Fix texinfo-based depcycles in core

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
>> Aaron Griffin wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Aaron Griffin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Aaron Griffin
>>>>>>> <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This idea is Thomas', I take no credit, except that I actually wrote
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> up.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The idea:
>>>>>>>> texinfo, on install, processes all info files. bash and glibc (and,
>>>>>>>> likely, other packages in core) no longer need to depend on texinfo,
>>>>>>>> but should check for install-info in the scriptlets before running.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> a) user installs bash and glibc. No info files are processed, texinfo
>>>>>>>> not installed
>>>>>>>> user then installs texinfo, all info files are processed
>>>>>>>> b) user installs texinfo first (somehow)
>>>>>>>> user then installs bash, info files processed due to existence of
>>>>>>>> install-info
>>>>>>>> c) user follows case a or b
>>>>>>>> user upgrades bash or glibc, info files processed as normal due to
>>>>>>>> presence of install-info
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any issues with this? See attached patch. Please review. If possible,
>>>>>>>> this needs to go to core before we release the ISOs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Seems reasonable for now. Basically any package in core should
>>>>>>> 1) not depend on texinfo
>>>>>>> 2) attempt to call install-info if it has info pages AND install-info
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> found?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess, technically all packages should check for install-info before
>>>>>> actually doing anything - it's only proper.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Allan, can we get the proto file updated with the -x check (and full
>>>>>> paths) ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Any opinions on this (well, the second email, with the fixed patch) ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That fix looks good to me. How long does it take to scan all info pages
>>>> when reinstalling texinfo on a system with a decent number of packages
>>>> installed?
>>>>
>>>> I will update the proto file soon.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The "scan all" is only done on _install_ not on upgrade. On upgrade it
>>> just does it's thing with its own info files
>>>
>>
>> OK. I noticed you have use the leading / when using the full path to the
>> install-info binary (i.e. /usr/bin/info-install vs. usr/bin/info-install)
>> Other prototype install scripts do not use the leading slash. Looking in
>> the PKGBUILD man page, it is not specified which is right. So, does this
>> matter and if so, which is actually correct?
>
> We always chroot into the root install directory, and also cwd to /,
> so it is probably better to specify the path without a leading slash.

Why? If one of those things ever changed, I imaged it'd be the 'cd',
not the chroot part. The absolute path will always work, whereas the
relative path will not.

Either way though, bikeshedding here - Allan, use your discretion.


Anyone want to help me apply this patch today, rebuild, and put these
packages in testing? I can do texinfo and bash, but don't know if
there's anything I need to know about glibc.
 
Old 01-28-2009, 07:04 PM
Aaron Griffin
 
Default Fix texinfo-based depcycles in core

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
>>> Aaron Griffin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Aaron Griffin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Aaron Griffin
>>>>>>>> <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This idea is Thomas', I take no credit, except that I actually wrote
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> up.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The idea:
>>>>>>>>> texinfo, on install, processes all info files. bash and glibc (and,
>>>>>>>>> likely, other packages in core) no longer need to depend on texinfo,
>>>>>>>>> but should check for install-info in the scriptlets before running.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> a) user installs bash and glibc. No info files are processed, texinfo
>>>>>>>>> not installed
>>>>>>>>> user then installs texinfo, all info files are processed
>>>>>>>>> b) user installs texinfo first (somehow)
>>>>>>>>> user then installs bash, info files processed due to existence of
>>>>>>>>> install-info
>>>>>>>>> c) user follows case a or b
>>>>>>>>> user upgrades bash or glibc, info files processed as normal due to
>>>>>>>>> presence of install-info
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Any issues with this? See attached patch. Please review. If possible,
>>>>>>>>> this needs to go to core before we release the ISOs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Seems reasonable for now. Basically any package in core should
>>>>>>>> 1) not depend on texinfo
>>>>>>>> 2) attempt to call install-info if it has info pages AND install-info
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> found?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I guess, technically all packages should check for install-info before
>>>>>>> actually doing anything - it's only proper.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Allan, can we get the proto file updated with the -x check (and full
>>>>>>> paths) ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any opinions on this (well, the second email, with the fixed patch) ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That fix looks good to me. How long does it take to scan all info pages
>>>>> when reinstalling texinfo on a system with a decent number of packages
>>>>> installed?
>>>>>
>>>>> I will update the proto file soon.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The "scan all" is only done on _install_ not on upgrade. On upgrade it
>>>> just does it's thing with its own info files
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK. I noticed you have use the leading / when using the full path to the
>>> install-info binary (i.e. /usr/bin/info-install vs. usr/bin/info-install)
>>> Other prototype install scripts do not use the leading slash. Looking in
>>> the PKGBUILD man page, it is not specified which is right. So, does this
>>> matter and if so, which is actually correct?
>>
>> We always chroot into the root install directory, and also cwd to /,
>> so it is probably better to specify the path without a leading slash.
>
> Why? If one of those things ever changed, I imaged it'd be the 'cd',
> not the chroot part. The absolute path will always work, whereas the
> relative path will not.
>
> Either way though, bikeshedding here - Allan, use your discretion.
>
>
> Anyone want to help me apply this patch today, rebuild, and put these
> packages in testing? I can do texinfo and bash, but don't know if
> there's anything I need to know about glibc.

Rebuilding everything now. glibc taks a long time 8)

For the record, the empty "return" doesn't work. It appears to return
the last value of $? in that case, so it still reports the scriptlet
failing. "return 0" should be used.
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31 AM.

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