X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:00:51 +0200 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: dash vs. ash? Message-ID: <20090710140051.GH12258@calimero.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <9e3fd2c80907100137s1c478e23s3ede80d7f8484355@mail.gmail.com> <20090710084147.GA12569@calimero.vinschen.de> <4A572880.5030604@byu.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A572880.5030604@byu.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-02-20) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: 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 On Jul 10 05:39, Eric Blake wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > According to Corinna Vinschen on 7/10/2009 2:41 AM: > > 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? > > It would work for me. I can whip out dash-0.5.5.1-2 to provide the ash > hardlink; do you want me to also do the work of providing the empty ash > package in the _obsolete category, or do you still want to do that as ash > maintainer (along with coordinating the two uploads)? You know, deep in my heart I'm a slacker. Consequentially I'd be happy to let you do all the work if you want to do it ;) 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