X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:41:47 +0200 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: dash vs. ash? Message-ID: <20090710084147.GA12569@calimero.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <9e3fd2c80907100137s1c478e23s3ede80d7f8484355 AT mail DOT gmail DOT 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 AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT 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