Upload: bash-3.0-3 [test]

Igor Pechtchanski pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu
Sat Jul 2 21:53:00 GMT 2005

On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, Eric Blake wrote:

> According to Igor Pechtchanski on 7/2/2005 2:52 PM:
> > What we really need is have setup run postinstall/preremove scripts in
> > some dependence-driven order.  Until then, the alphanumeric tricks should
> > suffice.
> Since I had to modify g-b-s to get special naming, it seems that most
> packages will have their pre/post scripts named after the package itself.

Sure, that's the default.  However, this shouldn't be too hard to change
-- if you used a variable instead of bashing the hard-coded name, please
submit a patch with your changes, and I'll integrate them into the g-b-s.

> Independent dependency orders also matter because the postinstall script
> for bash depends on coreutils (it uses link), but coreutils has a
> runtime dependence on /bin/sh (which will soon be bash) since groups is
> a script. There is no circular dependency if these are tracked
> separately, but with the single dependency scheme we have now it comes
> across as a circular dependency.  For now, I left coreutils out of
> bash's dependency list (it should be present anyways, as part of Base).

Well, true.  When I said "dependency-driven", I was talking about using
postinstall/preremove dependencies (which can't be circular) and package
dependencies (which can be whatever the maintainers want).

> >>Is bash something that can/should be alternativized with the other
> >>sh-variants?  What would I need to do to make it work cleanly?
> >
> > I would guess that bash itself won't need to do anything special -- it's a
> > question of the alternatives package having reasonable defaults.  Whatever
> > the case, whatever sets this up will need to run before other postinstall
> > scripts.  It may even be worth it to get setup.exe to recognize and treat
> > the alternatives postinstall/preremove scripts specially.
> I was under the impression that each maintainer who contributes an
> alternativized package adds files (or links) in special locations so that
> alternatives can just find them.

Yes, but bash would need to be special-cased, because of the postinstall
script issue.

> > Eric, please make sure your mailer respects the Reply-To: header -- I set
> > it for a reason.  Also, <http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#PCYMTWLL>.  Thanks.
> When I'm at my home computer, my email is configured properly.  <rant>But
> when I'm elsewhere and have to use the piece-of-trash webmail interface
> from my ISP, there is no way for me to control it.  I have already tried
> contacting comcast to tell them that wrapping long lines is essential,
> especially since SMTP allows servers to arbitrarily truncate lines at 999
> characters, but to no avail yet (and as a result, have had some of my
> emails arbitrarily chopped without any warning to me).  I try, but don't
> always remember, to add line breaks manually.  And as the reply-to: header
> is not visible in their webmail interface, I'm never really sure which
> users prefer reading only the list except by previous experience.</rant>
> Sorry for giving you a bad email experience.

Sorry to hear that.  Yes, if more people would complain to the webmail
providers and demand certain basic features, eventually someone will give
in.  If that someone is Yahoo or GMail, others will probably follow suit.
One can hope. :-)
      |\      _,,,---,,_		pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		igor@watson.ibm.com
     |,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

More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list