This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Upload: bash-3.0-4 [test]
- From: ericblake at comcast dot net (Eric Blake)
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 02:01:56 +0000
- Subject: Re: Upload: bash-3.0-4 [test]
> > Should man/man1/sh.1 always belong to bash, or should I use readlink
> > to ensure that I am only upgrading that link if it was to ash? In other
> > words, for users smart enough to replace /bin/sh with zsh, are they
> > also going to want to replace the /bin/sh manpage and expect that
> > replacement to be preserved?
> Probably it doesn't matter. Let's make sh.1 == bash.1 unconditionally.
Hmm - I just played with this some, and man will only follow a link
correctly if the link has the same extension as what it points to. In
other words, right now we have sh.1 -> ash.1, but with bash we
will need sh.1.gz -> bash.1.gz. There is no filename conflict between
the two packages, but man also prefers sh.1 over sh.1.gz. Therefore,
if the user upgrades bash but not ash, then the bash postinstall needs
to forcefully delete sh.1 because it provides sh.1.gz. Do you want to
have the ash postinstall run "ln -sf bash.1.gz /usr/share/man/man1/sh.1.gz",
or just let the sh man page disappear until bash is upgraded?