bash vs. ash vs. postinstall

[Eric Blake]

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

According to Corinna Vinschen on 6/22/2005 7:27 AM:
> What about something along these lines:
> 
> - ash only provides /bin/ash.exe
> - bash provides /bin/bash.exe and sh.exe (linked or copied)
> - ash gets a dependency to bash.
> - *Both* packages get postinstall #!/bin/bash scripts which copy bin/bash
>   to /bin/sh.
> 
> Would that help?

I agree with the first three points.  But on the fourth one, does
setup.exe really honor the #!?  (If it doesn't, then initscripts-0.9-1,
squid-2.4.STABLE7-1, tcp_wrappers-7.6-1, and xinetd-2.3.9-1 currently have
problems, because their postinstalls try to use #!/bin/bash.)  All
http://cygwin.com/setup.html says is that a postinstall.sh is run with the
cygwin shell (so that should be cleaned up to be more exact).  I don't
think it would be too hard to provide a .bat that does the copy, though.

Also, I can see the value of ash having a postinstall script to copy bash
to /bin/sh, but if bash is already providing /bin/sh in its package, does
it really need the postinstall as well?

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

Eric Blake             ebb9@byu.net

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (Cygwin)
Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCuhz784KuGfSFAYARAuhCAKCos/39TzDHHsXiiTsnJVZc/qNC/ACgkSiM
pkNcLWV4akHd92vHIU2/JkY=
=FOTS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----