On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 12:02:49PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote: >On Wed, 2002-07-31 at 11:02, Hack Kampbj?rn wrote: >> Christopher Faylor wrote: >> > >> > On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 11:27:06PM +0200, Hack Kampbj?rn wrote: >> > >What about depending on all the programs called in the scripts like: >> > ># cp, mkdir -> fileutils >> > ># hostname, id -> sh-utils >> > ># sh -> ash >> > ># tr -> textutils >> > >requires: ash fileutils sh-utils textutils >> > > >> > >Maybe the postinstall script could create the directory structure: /dev, >> > >/home, /var, /tmp, symlink hosts and services to the real windows files >> > >> > Yes, this is a valid point except maybe for the sh case, since the point >> > of these files is to help with sh/bash. >> >> Then the postinstall script should be rewritten as a windows batch >> script instead of using /bin/sh as now. > >I think Hack was saying that the package needs ash to execute correctly,
Yes, I got that from his response. >so it should depend on it - even though the package is there to help >bash. ash also accesses /etc/profile. So we'd be introducing a circular dependency. Does every package with a postinstall.sh script rely on ash now? I guess they should, but it feels silly to me to have to do this in this case. cgf
