Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2002/03/17/10:39:09
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 -