On Jul 6 02:01, Eric Blake wrote: > > > 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?
*shrug*. I'll remove sh.1 from the ash package and the rest is history. I'm running two Linux distros. Both have bash as sh. One of them has bash.1 == sh.1, the other ash1. == sh.1. No worries. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com Red Hat, Inc.
