ftp.delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2002/02/24/12:07:39

Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 12:07:16 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: base-files package needs a maintainer
Message-ID: <20020224170716.GA18286@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
References: <052f01c1a735$e7e4ee90$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <20020128170537 DOT GC3669 AT redhat DOT com> <035c01c1a851$da7ee090$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <027d01c1a856$33e16d70$0d00a8c0 AT mchasecompaq> <02dc01c1bd29$2725ebf0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks>
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <02dc01c1bd29$2725ebf0$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 10:48:17PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>
>===
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Michael A Chase" <mchase AT ix DOT netcom DOT com>
>> > I did try it yes, whats the problem?
>>
>> base_files.sh:
>>
>> if [ ! -f "/etc/[profile" ]; then
>>   cp -a /etc/profile.default /etc/profile
>> fi
>>
>> At some point, an extra '[' attached itself to the front of profile.
>
>Chris, do you need another tarball, or can you correct it yourself? I'd
>like to remove the profile generation code from HEAD, now that we've
>branched, and it would be neat to have the package extant so that HEAD
>is still useable.

Wow, I had to go back through the archives to see what you were talking
about.  This is an old thread.

I guess I can fix this myself.

I can add this to the "repository" but how should it be handled?  Should
there be a new "base-files" package that bash relies on?  Or should everyone
rely on it?  Having awk rely on a package which only creates /etc/profile
seems wrong.  In that case, it shouldn't be called base-files, should it?
Maybe it should be called something like "shell-init" or something.

But then does ash actually read /etc/profile?

I can see that there was some discussion of this, which was eventually
dropped.  Michael Chase raised the same issue as the above and Chuck
mentioned that this package might grow to do "more stuff" later.

I guess I'll respond to that message.

cgf

- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019