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