On Jun 22 13:58, Eric Blake wrote: > Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin <at> cygwin.com> writes: > > > > Why don't we just remove the "-c" and get setup.exe to use the > simple "bash > > > <filename>" syntax meaning "treat <filename> as a text file, open it and > pipe > > > it to stdin"? > > > > I already suggested this on the cygwin-developers ML back in May (*) > > but it was not discussed overly enthusiastic (**) (***). > > Indeed - changing things to be 'bash script' instead of the current 'bash -c > script' would make the use of alternative interpreters harder. But it does > not > make it impossible; you can always do: > > #!/bin/sh > /bin/awk <<\EOF > ... > EOF > > instead of > > #!/bin/awk > ... > > For that matter, are there any postinstall scripts currently relying on a > different interpreter? If not, then I'm in favor of the idea of changing > setup.exe to be immune to the execute bit on postinstall scripts, at the > expense of making postinstall scripts locked into bash (at least, as the > initial interpreter).
There can be only *.bat and *.sh files in /etc/postinstall and /etc/preremove. *.bat files are started via `cmd /c file' and *.sh files are started via `bash --norc --noprofile -c file'. So we sort of require a script to be a sh/bash script anyway right now. Admittedly, I did not actually *look* into all postinstall/preremove scripts in the distro. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
