X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com From: Eric Blake Subject: Re: ash "gotcha", other 1.7 upgrade wrinles Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:22:16 +0000 (UTC) Lines: 27 Message-ID: References: <4AE60FFF DOT 7080909 AT cs DOT umass DOT edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: 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 Eliot Moss cs.umass.edu> writes: > - But part of rebasing is to use ash (since it does not tie down > so many dlls and all, I believe) ... but ash is not there! Then something went wrong with your installation, because the dash package installs /usr/bin/ash.exe as part of the Base install, alongside /usr/bin/dash.exe. > - After a while, I found "dash", which appears to be "ash" under > a different name. I found the change gratuitous and surprising. > Users will need to be warned, I think, or the name changed back. There's no need for a name change, but it _would_ be nice to know what failed during your installation. > Hope there's something useful to you here ... Eliot Moss What would have been more useful would be following the directions and attaching cygcheck -svr output, as mentioned here: > Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html -- Eric Blake volunteer dash maintainer -- 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