This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-apps
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Upload: bash-3.0-4 [test]
On Jul 6 02:01, Eric Blake wrote:
> > > Should man/man1/sh.1 always belong to bash, or should I use readlink
> > > to ensure that I am only upgrading that link if it was to ash? In other
> > > words, for users smart enough to replace /bin/sh with zsh, are they
> > > also going to want to replace the /bin/sh manpage and expect that
> > > replacement to be preserved?
> >
> > Probably it doesn't matter. Let's make sh.1 == bash.1 unconditionally.
>
> Hmm - I just played with this some, and man will only follow a link
> correctly if the link has the same extension as what it points to. In
> other words, right now we have sh.1 -> ash.1, but with bash we
> will need sh.1.gz -> bash.1.gz. There is no filename conflict between
> the two packages, but man also prefers sh.1 over sh.1.gz. Therefore,
> if the user upgrades bash but not ash, then the bash postinstall needs
> to forcefully delete sh.1 because it provides sh.1.gz. Do you want to
> have the ash postinstall run "ln -sf bash.1.gz /usr/share/man/man1/sh.1.gz",
> or just let the sh man page disappear until bash is upgraded?
*shrug*. I'll remove sh.1 from the ash package and the rest is history.
I'm running two Linux distros. Both have bash as sh. One of them has
bash.1 == sh.1, the other ash1. == sh.1. No worries.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com
Red Hat, Inc.