Mail Archives: cygwin/2001/06/22/12:46:05
I wasn't going to spend any more time on this thread, but I am
slightly puzzled by Chris's response.
Earnie gave a useful piece of history explaining why Cygwin uses
ash for sh. He thought it was in the FAQ, but it seems not.
I then suggested that when advice such as "don't do that"
(in this case copy bash to sh) is posted here it would be better
understood if a reason or reference was given.
Chris said:
> Did you read Earnie's response? He gave reasons.
I was referring to "don't do that" posts in general, not Earnie's
excellent response in this case.
And then:
> What you're really asking is:
>
> "I just installed cygwin and notice that it has a /bin/sh and a
> /bin/bash. I think I'll just copy /bin/bash to /bin/sh. Why won't
> you let me do this?"
Ah, if only I'd realised before that Chris was a mind-reader I
wouldn't have posted at all! Seriously, though, I'm not a new
Cygwin user, and I've no desire to copy bash to sh. If I did
decide this would be useful I'd be prepared to do my own
investigation of any problems arising. But it seems my mail
has produced a very good response which would help new users
who probably do have such questions.
Just to reiterate - I'm comfortable with bash/ash/sh; I'm
comfortable with the usual advice of "don't meddle unless
you know what you're doing"; I was just curious that the
Autoconf doc apparently contradicted oft-given advice here,
and wondered which was "right" in the eyes of the Cygwin community.
I seemingly provoked a storm in a teacup, but hopefully
some of this useful info will now be added to the FAQ.
So I guess it's over to Jim, Chuck, Rob and David.
-- Cliff
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
- Raw text -