Michael A Chase wrote: > Shouldn't this be part of the ash package? Now that it's part of the Base > category, there shouldn't be any problem creating /etc/profile when ash is > installed.
No. ash provides ash. base-files provides the data for a purely data-driven setup.exe. That is, the scripts (which require ash) to create /etc/.profile, /etc/.bashrc, etc. base-files may later do more stuff, like create the /usr/local/ tree and the /var tree -- why should setup.exe have that stuff hardcoded into it? 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? --Chuck > -- > Mac :}) > ** I normally forward private questions to the appropriate mail list. ** > Ask Smarter: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.htm > Give a hobbit a fish and he eats fish for a day. > Give a hobbit a ring and he eats fish for an age. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 05:24 > Subject: base-files package needs a maintainer > > > >>Setup.hint: >>@ base_files >>sdesc: "Core common files needed for correct operation of cygwin" >>category: Base >> >>The entire package is attached. >> >>The /etc/profile generation is getting removed from setup.exe unless >>someone provides a _real good_ reason for it to remain. >> >>Setup.exe should be *data driven*, and in this area is not at the >>moment. >> >>This package can be released at any point, it shouldn't cause any >>problem with current setup.exe's, and will allow a future release of >>setup.exe to do away with the /etc/profile generation crud. >> > > > > >
