Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 10:39:07 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Link for MORE Message-ID: <20020317153907.GA25617@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 02:29:01AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com] > >> Actually, IIRC, I had some reservations about the "generic >> base-files" concept which I don't think I ever got a >> satisfactory response to. > >The ones I recall where >a) The name. >b) Should the files go in with bash/tcsh ? > >To which a) is under you control, and b) was (IIRC) answered with, >"which one gets the files?" *>Once the configuration tasks performed by base-files grows, why should *>it be part of the "ash" package? You don't want to redo the setup *>scripts when updating ash.exe, do you? * *No, but there's no reason why installation of 'sed' should cause the *creation of /etc/profile either. I don't see any reason why this *functionality couldn't either be part of ash/bash installation (although *the /etc/profile that gets created isn't really ash-aware) with some *intelligence for not overwriting the profile file. I don't see any reason why /etc/profile should be in a generic package. I can see things like /etc/passwd and /etc/group, which everything relies on, but /etc/profile is something that bash or ash reads. If neither is installed, then /etc/profile shouldn't be installed either. Actually, I don't think there is any reason to have a default /etc/profile for ash. I think it is really only useful for bash. The current /etc/profile seems to assume that it is running under bash. However, it really should be more ash friendly since ash reads /etc/profile. Either that or maybe ash should read something other than /etc/profile. cgf