Re: ash vs. bash
On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > What makes two links more fragile than one link? update-alternatives works
> > pretty well, and it is non-obstrusive: If you change the link, it will
> > notice and take a step back.
>
> Read the code, realise how long there is and how many <do X> || die
> commands there are between deleting the old link and installing the
> new one, and it will be obvious. It's not a question of two links
> rather than one, but a question of "what happens if
> update-alternatives fails for some reason"?
The "what happens if update-alternatives fails for some reason" problem
doesn't only apply to /bin/sh. Any other symlink that is maintained by
update-alternatives will also be affected by this problem. Can't
update-alternatives be changed so that in any of the "<do X> || die"
situations where the new link hasn't yet been made, the old link still
exists?
Should I file a bug for this? I'm sorry if I won't be able to come up with
a patch, since I don't know much about perl.
Remco
--
rd1936: 9:05pm up 34 days, 12:00, 10 users, load average: 1.43, 1.37, 1.30
Reply to: