Re: trigger question for tex-common
On Fr, 27 Mär 2009, Norbert Preining wrote:
> > If the sysadmin calls update-foobar manually, then dpkg-trigger won't
> > be effective, because dpkg-trigger just schedules work to be done
> > later by dpkg before dpkg exits. If dpkg isn't running, the work will
> > be deferred indefinitely. The best answer to this is to have two
>
> So that is already fine, or? So if root is calling
> update-updmap
> and that script calls
> dpkg-trigger ...
> *nothing* happens even when calling
> dpkg --configure -a
> afterwards?
>
> > different scripts or two different invocations: one for the postinst,
> > which does dpkg-trigger, and one for sysadmins, which actually does
> > the work. The former invokes the latter via the triggers mechanism,
>
> Hmm, I don't want to add another script calling another script. I think
> that should be handled all by update-* scripts itself. Especially, since
> all our update-* scripts are in fact only one script where some initial
> settings differ.
Ok, I did it that way as you suggested. The dh_installtex now inserts
simply
update-texmf-config language
or
update-texmf-config updmap
into the postinst script. That in turn (installed into /usr/sbin) simply
calls
dpkg-trigger texmf-language
or
dpkg-trigger texmf-updmap
and not does anything else. The point here is that the postinst/trigger
action of tex-common will call update-* anyway.
That way calls from root to update-* work as before, and only the
maintainer scripts will call the update-texmf-config script.
Now if I only could test that out ...
Best wishes
Norbert
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at> Vienna University of Technology
Debian Developer <preining@debian.org> Debian TeX Group
gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Out of memory.
We wish to hold the whole sky,
But we never will.
--- Windows Error Haiku
Reply to: