X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Date:	Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:41:47 +0200
From:	Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: dash vs. ash?
Message-ID:	<20090710084147.GA12569@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<9e3fd2c80907100137s1c478e23s3ede80d7f8484355 AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<9e3fd2c80907100137s1c478e23s3ede80d7f8484355@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-02-20)
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Jul 10 10:37, Robert Klemme wrote:
> All,
> 
> I just notice that there is dash in cygwin 1.7 but there is also ash.
> What would be the reason to switch from ash to dash?  From what I am
> finding on the web it seems, dash was basically ash code modernized.
> So it seems when on 1.7 dash would be the preferred one.  Any insight?

I think dash is preferred in future.  In theory we should dash hardlink
to ash and deprecate the ash package entirely.  It's about time.  Eric?


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -