Re: experimental bash-2.03 and readline-4.0 packages for potato
On Sun, Nov 21, 1999 at 12:14:23PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > That's a tricky question :) What do you use --unpack for? Does apt
> > use it?
> It's the general case. Remember that if some other package fails
> to install you'll be left in the unpack state.
So it should be sane if in that case /bin/sh points to bash.
> simple is good.
Yep - KISS principle :)
> > If it works, /bin/sh should be preserved my making it a divertion
> > or something like that which will be undone in the postinst.
> You mean you're diverting yourself, right?
Hmm, probably I have to reread Anthonies comments on this. My idea of this was
- divert /bin/sh (store it's current state?)
- install bash redirecting /bin/sh to /bin/bash
- undivert /bin/sh (restoring it's previous contents)
> I think dpkg does the right thing with this if you're installing
> using dpkg --root, and you've got at least what's in the base
> disks installed at that root, but it's worth testing. I've not
> played with --root myself, I've just encountered other people who
> try to use it.
Hmm, I guess I will do my own tests. However this will have to wait for the
end of next week since I am otherwise engaged.
> Which leads into what I was saying two messages back: if we're going
> to use alternatives with bash they'll have to be re-engineered.
> > PS: Should I retain the Cc to Joel? I am not sure if he is interested
> > in this discussion - he has enough work with libc I think :)
> Probably not, I've removed him from the cc list.
Okay. I think we should let this discussion float while everybody is doing his