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

[Aaron Griffin]

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

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.