Make error in glibc
Mike.McCarty at sbcglobal.net
Wed May 5 13:10:23 PDT 2010
Chris Staub wrote:
[/bin/sh not a pointer to .../bash]
> On 05/05/2010 07:33 AM, Simon Geard wrote:
>> That *is* a deviation - you might be typing your commands into a bash
>> shell personally, but scripts you run from there will be using /bin/sh.
>> In theory programs using /bin/sh shouldn't use bash-specific features,
>> but in practice, many do.
> Then those that do should be considered buggy and must be fixed.
> Personally I think that requiring /bin/sh -> bash is pointless, and that
> if there are any packages that have /bin/sh while using Bash features
> those packages should be corrected...but then I seem to be alone on this...
No, you are _not_ alone, and your criticism seems unfair to me.
You seem to be projecting something into Simon. The fact is that
there are packages which rely upon that sort of thing, and they
are not under the control of the LFS crew. So, it's a fact of
life they live with, and which you will have to do so as well.
It's a choice the LFS crew have made to keep their sanity.
Rather than try to figure out what packages actually require
bash features, and contact their maintainers, and then hope to
get fixes in place, they have chosen simply to say "make
/bin/sh point to a copy of bash".
It doesn't fix the problem, it just covers it up; true. However,
they are not in the business of supporting all the packages that
make up LFS, they are in the business of supporting LFS, which
is not the same thing.
I do not speak for the LFS crew, and my opinions are my own.
I don't *know* their motivations, but that's the way it looks
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
More information about the lfs-support