Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From: "John Morrison" <john DOT r DOT morrison AT ntlworld DOT com>
To: <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: RE: profile - mkpasswd, mkgroup
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 09:26:07 +0100
Message-ID: <NCEBJJFMCAOKNNABBFIMCEEFCEAA.john.r.morrison@ntlworld.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
In-Reply-To: <20020728234247.GC19054@redhat.com>
Importance: Normal

> From: On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor
> On Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 12:47:47PM +0100, John Morrison wrote:
> >Hi all.
> >
> >One of the first things I almost always have to do upon
> >installing cygwin on a machine at work is generate the
> >groups and passwords for the domain.
> >
> >What I'm proposing to do is remove the creation of the
> >batch program from setup (with, I think Rob's blessing :)
> >and add it to the profile package.
> >
> >Then, after changing it to a shell script (are there
> >any issues with this?) doing something along the lines
> >of (peudo-code):
<snip/>
> >Only problem I can see is I don't know whether
> >the variable USERDOMAIN is NT specific.  There
> >may be other issues also (I can only test on
> >w2k).
> >
> >Thoughts?
>
> I'm not against the idea but I don't really see what it has
> to do with a packaged called "profile".

Nothing really, it's just something else that the setup.exe
has hardcoded which, with the profile package being
a) so small and
b) already removing functionality from setup.exe
I thought might be nice :)

> (Which IMO should be renamed to something else, anyway
> shell-startup, maybe?)

Personally, I think...

# apt-cache show base-files
Package: base-files
Essential: yes
Priority: required
Section: base
Installed-Size: 158
Maintainer: Santiago Vila <sanvila AT debian DOT org>
Architecture: i386
Version: 3.0.2
Replaces: base, miscutils, libreadline, libreadlineg2 (<< 2.1-16), bash (<<
2.03-3)
Provides: base
Depends: awk, base-passwd (>= 2.0.3.4)
Filename: pool/main/b/base-files/base-files_3.0.2_i386.deb
Size: 30956
MD5sum: d723a300b1d60b3e3a61c694af7ee72d
Description: Debian base system miscellaneous files
 This package contains the basic filesystem hierarchy of a Debian system,
and
 several important miscellaneous files, such as /etc/debian_version,
 /etc/host.conf, /etc/issue, /etc/motd, /etc/profile, /etc/nsswitch.conf,
 and others, and the text of several common licenses in use on Debian
systems.

No?

J.


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/