This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps@cygwin.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: bash vs. ash vs. postinstall


On Jun 22 22:43, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, Eric Blake wrote:
> > According to Corinna Vinschen on 6/22/2005 7:27 AM:
> > > What about something along these lines:
> > >
> > > - ash only provides /bin/ash.exe
> > > - bash provides /bin/bash.exe and sh.exe (linked or copied)
> > > - ash gets a dependency to bash.
> > > - *Both* packages get postinstall #!/bin/bash scripts which copy bin/bash
> > >   to /bin/sh.
> > >[...]
> > I don't think it would be too hard to provide a .bat that does the copy,
> > though.
> 
> True, and it would be independent of whether /bin/sh is present.

Sure.  I just hate .bats(*).

> > Also, I can see the value of ash having a postinstall script to copy
> > bash to /bin/sh, but if bash is already providing /bin/sh in its
> > package, does it really need the postinstall as well?

The idea is that if both postinstalls care for making bash sh, then
regardless what crude install is going on, one of them succeeds.

> One other thing is that postinstall scripts are run in alphabetical order,
> so naming the script 00bash.sh should make it execute first.

Good point.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com
Red Hat, Inc.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]