Early fault running jhalfs-2.0 on clfs-svn

TheOldFellow TheOldFellow at gmail.com
Sat Nov 11 14:39:08 PST 2006


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.




More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list