base-files package needs a maintainer

base-files package needs a maintainer

[Robert Collins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 541 bytes --]

Setup.hint:
@ base_files
sdesc: "Core common files needed for correct operation of cygwin"
category: Base

The entire package is attached.

The /etc/profile generation is getting removed from setup.exe unless
someone provides a _real good_ reason for it to remain.

Setup.exe should be *data driven*, and in this area is not at the
moment.

This package can be released at any point, it shouldn't cause any
problem with current setup.exe's, and will allow a future release of
setup.exe to do away with the /etc/profile generation crud.

Rob

[-- Attachment #2: base_files-0-1.tar.bz2 --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 544 bytes --]

Re: base-files package needs a maintainer

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 12:24:10AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>Setup.hint:
>@ base_files
>sdesc: "Core common files needed for correct operation of cygwin"
>category: Base
>
>The entire package is attached.
>
>The /etc/profile generation is getting removed from setup.exe unless
>someone provides a _real good_ reason for it to remain.

I don't mind maintaining this but did you try it?  It seems like there's
a typo in the base_files.sh script.

cgf

Re: base-files package needs a maintainer

[Michael A Chase]

Shouldn't this be part of the ash package?  Now that it's part of the Base
category, there shouldn't be any problem creating /etc/profile when ash is
installed.
--
Mac :})
** I normally forward private questions to the appropriate mail list. **
Ask Smarter: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.htm
Give a hobbit a fish and he eats fish for a day.
Give a hobbit a ring and he eats fish for an age.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Collins" <robert.collins@itdomain.com.au>
To: <cygwin-apps@sources.redhat.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 05:24
Subject: base-files package needs a maintainer


> Setup.hint:
> @ base_files
> sdesc: "Core common files needed for correct operation of cygwin"
> category: Base
>
> The entire package is attached.
>
> The /etc/profile generation is getting removed from setup.exe unless
> someone provides a _real good_ reason for it to remain.
>
> Setup.exe should be *data driven*, and in this area is not at the
> moment.
>
> This package can be released at any point, it shouldn't cause any
> problem with current setup.exe's, and will allow a future release of
> setup.exe to do away with the /etc/profile generation crud.

Re: base-files package needs a maintainer

[Charles Wilson]

Michael A Chase wrote:

> Shouldn't this be part of the ash package?  Now that it's part of the Base
> category, there shouldn't be any problem creating /etc/profile when ash is
> installed.


No.  ash provides ash.  base-files provides the data for a purely 
data-driven setup.exe.  That is, the scripts (which require ash) to 
create /etc/.profile, /etc/.bashrc, etc.

base-files may later do more stuff, like create the /usr/local/ tree and 
the /var tree -- why should setup.exe have that stuff hardcoded into it?

Once the configuration tasks performed by base-files grows, why should 
it be part of the "ash" package?  You don't want to redo the setup 
scripts when updating ash.exe, do you?

--Chuck

> --
> Mac :})
> ** I normally forward private questions to the appropriate mail list. **
> Ask Smarter: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.htm
> Give a hobbit a fish and he eats fish for a day.
> Give a hobbit a ring and he eats fish for an age.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Collins" <robert.collins@itdomain.com.au>
> To: <cygwin-apps@sources.redhat.com>
> Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 05:24
> Subject: base-files package needs a maintainer
> 
> 
> 
>>Setup.hint:
>>@ base_files
>>sdesc: "Core common files needed for correct operation of cygwin"
>>category: Base
>>
>>The entire package is attached.
>>
>>The /etc/profile generation is getting removed from setup.exe unless
>>someone provides a _real good_ reason for it to remain.
>>
>>Setup.exe should be *data driven*, and in this area is not at the
>>moment.
>>
>>This package can be released at any point, it shouldn't cause any
>>problem with current setup.exe's, and will allow a future release of
>>setup.exe to do away with the /etc/profile generation crud.
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: base-files package needs a maintainer

[Robert Collins]

===
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf@redhat.com>

> I don't mind maintaining this but did you try it?  It seems like
there's
> a typo in the base_files.sh script.

I did try it yes, whats the problem?

Rob

Re: base-files package needs a maintainer

[Michael A Chase]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert Collins" <robert.collins@itdomain.com.au>
To: <cygwin-apps@cygwin.com>
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 15:16
Subject: Re: base-files package needs a maintainer


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf@redhat.com>
> 
> > I don't mind maintaining this but did you try it?  It seems like
> there's
> > a typo in the base_files.sh script.
> 
> 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.
-- 
Mac :})
** I normally forward private questions to the appropriate mail list. **
Ask Smarter: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.htm
Give a hobbit a fish and he eats fish for a day.
Give a hobbit a ring and he eats fish for an age.

Re: base-files package needs a maintainer

[Robert Collins]

===
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael A Chase" <mchase@ix.netcom.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.

Rob

Re: base-files package needs a maintainer

[Christopher Faylor]

On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 10:48:17PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>
>===
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Michael A Chase" <mchase@ix.netcom.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

Re: base-files package needs a maintainer

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 05:49:00PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
>Michael A Chase wrote:
>
>>Shouldn't this be part of the ash package?  Now that it's part of the Base
>>category, there shouldn't be any problem creating /etc/profile when ash is
>>installed.
>
>
>No.  ash provides ash.  base-files provides the data for a purely 
>data-driven setup.exe.  That is, the scripts (which require ash) to 
>create /etc/.profile, /etc/.bashrc, etc.
>
>base-files may later do more stuff, like create the /usr/local/ tree and 
>the /var tree -- why should setup.exe have that stuff hardcoded into it?
>
>Once the configuration tasks performed by base-files grows, why should 
>it be part of the "ash" package?  You don't want to redo the setup 
>scripts when updating ash.exe, do you?

No, but there's no reason why installation of 'sed' should cause the
creation of /etc/profile either.  I don't see any reason why this
functionality couldn't either be part of ash/bash installation (although
the /etc/profile that gets created isn't really ash-aware) with some
intelligence for not overwriting the profile file.

Either that or we make the base-files package more intelligent about what
it installs and when.  That's doable.

cgf

Re: base-files package needs a maintainer

[Robert Collins]

===
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf@redhat.com>

> 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.

Being in base, it will automatically get installed.

> I guess I'll respond to that message.

I'll follow up on the rest after that then.

Rob