delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2002/03/17/10:39:09

Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 10:39:07 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Link for MORE
Message-ID: <20020317153907.GA25617@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
References: <FC169E059D1A0442A04C40F86D9BA760014C12 AT itdomain003 DOT itdomain DOT net DOT au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <FC169E059D1A0442A04C40F86D9BA760014C12@itdomain003.itdomain.net.au>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 02:29:01AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com] 
>
>> Actually, IIRC, I had some reservations about the "generic 
>> base-files" concept which I don't think I ever got a 
>> satisfactory response to.
>
>The ones I recall where
>a) The name.
>b) Should the files go in with bash/tcsh ?
>
>To which a) is under you control, and b) was (IIRC) answered with,
>"which one gets the files?"

*>Once the configuration tasks performed by base-files grows, why should
*>it be part of the "ash" package?  You don't want to redo the setup
*>scripts when updating ash.exe, do you?
*
*No, but there's no reason why installation of 'sed' should cause the  
*creation of /etc/profile either.  I don't see any reason why this
*functionality couldn't either be part of ash/bash installation (although
*the /etc/profile that gets created isn't really ash-aware) with some
*intelligence for not overwriting the profile file.

I don't see any reason why /etc/profile should be in a generic package.
I can see things like /etc/passwd and /etc/group, which everything
relies on, but /etc/profile is something that bash or ash reads.  If
neither is installed, then /etc/profile shouldn't be installed either.

Actually, I don't think there is any reason to have a default
/etc/profile for ash.  I think it is really only useful for bash.  The
current /etc/profile seems to assume that it is running under bash.
However, it really should be more ash friendly since ash reads
/etc/profile.  Either that or maybe ash should read something
other than /etc/profile.

cgf

- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019