Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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
Message-ID: <42D5DFCD.2030104@byu.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 21:45:17 -0600
From: Eric Blake <ebb9 AT byu DOT net>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: BUG: bash 3.0-7 breaks rebaseall
References: <0A3D9E88-D9E4-4D47-A416-66DBEB2589C7 AT acm DOT org> <42D5BE08 DOT 17EC8ECF AT dessent DOT net>
In-Reply-To: <42D5BE08.17EC8ECF@dessent.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

According to Brian Dessent on 7/13/2005 7:21 PM:
> Thanks for the report, but this has already been noted and discussed
> recently in other threads.  Several solutions have been proposed but I
> think the jury is still out on how to handle it.
> 
> The main issue is that no matter how you implement the 'rebaseall'
> concept, you still won't be able to run it from a standard bash command
> prompt and have it modify the in-use DLLs.  I think statically linking
> bash or providing a second version of bash that is statically linked
> have both been vetoed.

Actually, I am against a statically linked /bin/sh as bash, because
/bin/sh should not be any less full-featured than /bin/bash, or we are no
better off than having ash again with regards to the sh != bash complaints
on the list.  But I am not entirely opposed to a statically linked
/usr/sbin/sh, a statically-linked version of bash with all interactive
features stripped (ie. no aliases, no history, no syntax extensions, ...).
 Normal PATHs do not put sbin at the front (or maybe I could name it
/usr/sbin/bash-lite to be explicit and unique).  But rebaseall would then
have a known good static shell, and still break the dependence on ash.  By
the way, since sbin is not mounted by default, would such a reduced shell
belong better as /sbin/sh or /usr/sbin/sh?

- --
Life is short - so eat dessert first!

Eric Blake             ebb9 AT byu DOT net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Cygwin)
Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFC1d/N84KuGfSFAYARAoiMAKCDOW6G5KHGWWchk8sGxD0c7TVgtACgiIJ2
q7Y/h3LxJmuwtwGahORs+iI=
=bibZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
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/