Re: bash vs. ash vs. postinstall

[Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>]

On Jun 22 07:19, Eric Blake wrote:
> One other issue is that unless ash is updated simultaneously with bash, I
> see potential problems with users losing /bin/sh altogether: bash-3.0-3
> overwrites /bin/sh with bash, then uninstalling ash (or upgrading to a new
> ash that no longer has /bin/sh) will delete /bin/sh because the old
> version had it, without realizing that it is not ash that is getting
> deleted.  So we definitely need a new ash package, and it is now a
> question of whether it should bundle a shell as /bin/ash or just be empty
> (as an end-of-life for ash as maintained by cygwin).  Furthermore, all
> other packages that depend on ash because they use /bin/sh will need to
> update their dependencies to be on bash.  Fortunately, ash comes before
> bash in the alphabet, so a simultaneous upgrade to a new ash and bash
> should still end up with a working /bin/sh.

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?


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com
Red Hat, Inc.