[arch-dev-public] Fix texinfo-based depcycles in core

[Dan McGee]

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Allan McRae <allan at archlinux.org> wrote:
> Aaron Griffin wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Allan McRae <allan at archlinux.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Aaron Griffin wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Aaron Griffin
>>>>>> <aaronmgriffin at 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