On Jul 5 07:33, Eric Blake wrote: > Corinna wrote: > > I'm ready when you're ready. Do I need to add a postinstall script > > or will your postinstall script care for everything? > > You should be able to use my postinstall script unchanged - > /etc/postinstall/00bash.sh is a one-liner, although you may want to rename > yours to 00ash.sh.
In theory. I'm just wondering if your script is safe enough. test -x /bin/sh.exe || link /bin/bash.exe /bin/sh.exe The point is, if somebody wants to upgrade bash but not ash for whatever reason ("Gee, *nobody* needs ash, right?"), this person will get stuck with ash as sh. without noticing. So, well, why not forcing users to have sh == bash, *if* bash is installed? 00ash.sh: #!/bin/ash link /bin/bash.exe /bin/sh.exe || link /bin/ash.exe /bin/sh.exe 00bash.sh: #!/bin/bash link /bin/bash.exe /bin/sh.exe || link /bin/ash.exe /bin/sh.exe This would also mean, you can get rid of your preremove script again. It seems somewhat dangerous to me anyway. I'd rather have a dangling /bin/sh.exe than none at all. > Do you want to release ash as a test version first, to > ensure that we don't have any surprises when running setup.exe? I love surprises. Especially if it's not me who's surprised ;-) > that assumption, my setup.hint still has 3.0-4 as a test version for > today. You can delete 3.0-3. > > file size md5sum > http://home.comcast.net/~ericblake/bash-3.0-4.tar.bz2 > 414777 792ee2d526faf12447521654456fb450 > http://home.comcast.net/~ericblake/bash-3.0-4-src.tar.bz2 > 2492709 5b17fde01886e05ac410cdf0eee06779 > http://home.comcast.net/~ericblake/bash.setup.hint > (prev: 2.05b-16, curr: 2.05b-17, test: 3.0-4) > 542 ffc95c4c4982946c10d7e32e865a0651 I upload as soon as we have discussed the above. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com Red Hat, Inc.