X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <47DBCE4C.FF87C0FA@dessent.net> Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 06:25:32 -0700 From: Brian Dessent X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: ash/bash postinstall dance [Was: Cygwin doesn't install on Windows Server 2008 (x64).] References: <47DB6508.50E4B9C9@dessent.net> <47DBC548.6090506@byu.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Eric Blake wrote: > Except that the bash postinstall tries to do one other thing - it caters > to users who prefer ksh, zsh, or the relatively recent posh as their > /bin/sh. While it is not the default installation, I also don't want to > forbid it. In other words, bash tries to upgrade /bin/sh only if it can > identify it as ash or bash, and not if it is some other shell. I thought about that possibility, but: 1. Has this capability ever been formally advertised as supported? 2. How many people out there actually have a non-bash /bin/sh? 3. How many script compatibility issues do they run into when doing this (aka "how much of a masochist must one be to try this")? The tradeoff that I have in mind here is saving X number of people the extra startup overhead of bash having to read and parse a profile.d script that checks if bash.exe is newer than sh.exe, versus breaking the ability of Y number of people to have non-bash /bin/sh. And I contend that X >> Y by a huge factor. Brian -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/