On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 12:14:27 +0100, M.Canales.es wrote:
> El Viernes, 10 de Noviembre de 2006 23:39, Dan
Nicholson escribió:
>
>> I don't agree. The whole reason that we put the
#!/bin/sh shebang in
>> scripts is that we can expect a Posix compliant
shell. What we're
>> doing here (I do this myself, too) is using Bash.
Ubuntu ships with
>> Bash, just has sh->dash. So, we should stop
fooling around and make
>> the shell we want bash instead of griping about
what /bin/sh is.
>> There's no rule that says sh->bash. Or, go back
through all the
>> scripts and make them fully Posix compliant.
There's an easy solution
>> and a hard solution here.
>
> Well, taking into account that the books expect that
the host is running bash
> while building the system (~/.bash_profile is what is
used to set up a sane
> environment) and that some book's commands may have
bashims, I think that is
> better to invoke explicitly /bin/bash is all places
where a shell is needed.
>
> I will do the changes in the XSL code now.
I agree with Dan and yourself on this. And I'm rather
pleased to have
flushed it out, I could easily have used a LiveCD, but chose
to go with
ubuntu since it's a very popular distribution (that I have
to run in order
to support people).
The only advantage that a less feature-full shell like dash
might give is
speed of execution, and given the application, this isn't a
requirement for
automating builds, IMO.
It's always seemed a bit daft for the LFS book to build bash
and then go to
a lot of trouble to make the bootscripts posix-conformant, I
recollect
saying so when Nathan was struggling through it!
All the best,
R.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/alfs-discu
ss
FAQ: http://www.linux
fromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
|