Eric Blake wrote: > Except that the bash postinstall tries to do one other thing - it caters > to users who prefer ksh, zsh, or the relatively recent posh as their > /bin/sh. While it is not the default installation, I also don't want to > forbid it. In other words, bash tries to upgrade /bin/sh only if it can > identify it as ash or bash, and not if it is some other shell.
I thought about that possibility, but: 1. Has this capability ever been formally advertised as supported? 2. How many people out there actually have a non-bash /bin/sh? 3. How many script compatibility issues do they run into when doing this (aka "how much of a masochist must one be to try this")? The tradeoff that I have in mind here is saving X number of people the extra startup overhead of bash having to read and parse a profile.d script that checks if bash.exe is newer than sh.exe, versus breaking the ability of Y number of people to have non-bash /bin/sh. And I contend that X >> Y by a huge factor. Brian -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
