On Mar 6 00:30, Charles Wilson wrote: > Yet another instance of using a custom cygport function. I'm going to > consider this a WONTFIX in the packaging. The relevant cygport patch is > attached, and once (if) appropriate support is added to the official > cygport product, I will adapt inetutils.cygport to use it. Until then... > > > > Based on my original 01/2007 proposal for various hooks (two "prep" hooks > and two "install" hooks), Yaakov added the following to cygport-0.3.8-1 > last month: > > # src_unpack_hook() is an optional function which can be defined > # to alter the original source tree and avoid large patches > # or long DIFF_EXCLUDES, or to apply patches in tarballs > > However, of the four hooks I originally proposed, this is the only one > merged into 0.3.8-1. Of course, even that was a re-write of my original > proposal. Sigh. [*]
> [*] On the plus side, something similar to my multiple-postinstall patch > has been merged into CVS HEAD recently. It doesn't allow "foo.sh" to > represent the postinstall script for the main foo package (it 'only' allows > "foo.postinstall" and "postinstall.sh" for the main foo package), but > Yaakov's code is much easier to follow (that 'foo.sh' concession to old > g-b-s behavior made the code a LOT uglier...I'm not sorry to see it go, and > am ecstatic to see sufficient support for per-subpackage > postinstall/preremove scripts in cygport at last) OTOH, do you know if Yaakov is still around? He didn't reply to any of my mails related to util-linux for two weeks now(*). We still have that packaging problem. Is he on vacation? Corinna (*) http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2008-02/msg00131.html -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
