Re: bash vs. ash vs. postinstall
On Jun 22 22:43, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, Eric Blake wrote: 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. [...] I don't think it would be too hard to provide a .bat that does the copy, though. True, and it would be independent of whether /bin/sh is present. Sure. I just hate .bats(*). 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? The idea is that if both postinstalls care for making bash sh, then regardless what crude install is going on, one of them succeeds. One other thing is that postinstall scripts are run in alphabetical order, so naming the script 00bash.sh should make it execute first. Good point. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com Red Hat, Inc.
Re: bash vs. ash vs. postinstall
On Jun 23 09:04, Corinna Vinschen wrote: Sure. I just hate .bats(*). [...] Corinna (*) Not the animals. Never heard about Dotbats anyway. -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com Red Hat, Inc.
Re: upset apparently mostly better now, but still ignoring my new package!
Corinna Vinschen wrote: On Jun 23 00:41, Max Bowsher wrote: Ok, there's no longer 12 upset processes thrashing the machine, and the brokenness in setup.ini has gone away for the most part, but it's still not correctly listing my apache2 packages. Help? You accidentally copied the apache2 directory into the cygwin directory instead of the cygwin/release directory. No wonder it never showed up. Um. I feel a little stupid! :-) However, oddly enough, the data from setup.hint showed up in setup.ini despite that, just missing the install: and source: entries! Dunno about upset otherwise. setup.ini looks ok this morning, AFAICS. Indeed, it seems fine now. How bizarre. Max.
Re: bash vs. ash vs. postinstall
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005, Corinna Vinschen wrote: On Jun 23 09:04, Corinna Vinschen wrote: Sure. I just hate .bats(*). [...] Corinna (*) Not the animals. Never heard about Dotbats anyway. They're regular bats subverted by MS. :-) Some with long horns... Igor -- http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/ |\ _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D. '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow! The Sun will pass between the Earth and the Moon tonight for a total Lunar eclipse... -- WCBS Radio Newsbrief, Oct 27 2004, 12:01 pm EDT
RE: [PATCH] generic-build-script
[snip] Gary, Do you use the g-b-s for mutt? Yep. For the last two or three releases. If so, would you care to submit the changes that factor out config variables *you* needed? If possible, please leave the default, rather than mutt-specific, values in the patch, but I'd rather tweak the patch to restore the default values than have no patch at all. Sure, I'll see if I can do that tonight. IIRC I had it set up in a fairly generic way, should I have ever gotten around to submitting it. -- Gary R. Van Sickle
