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-discuss FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
