This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: base-files package needs a maintainer
- From: Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 12:07:16 -0500
- Subject: Re: base-files package needs a maintainer
- References: <052f01c1a735$e7e4ee90$0200a8c0@lifelesswks> <20020128170537.GC3669@redhat.com> <035c01c1a851$da7ee090$0200a8c0@lifelesswks> <027d01c1a856$33e16d70$0d00a8c0@mchasecompaq> <02dc01c1bd29$2725ebf0$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
- Reply-to: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 10:48:17PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Michael A Chase" <email@example.com>
>> > I did try it yes, whats the problem?
>> if [ ! -f "/etc/[profile" ]; then
>> cp -a /etc/profile.default /etc/profile
>> 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.