Le 12/02/2016 02:54, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
Didier Kryn <k...@in2p3.fr> writes:
Le 11/02/2016 17:04, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
Didier Kryn <k...@in2p3.fr> writes:
[...]
It should be the name of a shell capable of running Bourne/ standard
shell scripts. But this may not work if the /bin/dash in the original
script was there for a reason, ie, it was using dash features.
As I already wrote, vdev was working well with busybox's ash.,
replacing 'dash' with 'sh' in the shebang.
If the question is why Jude replaced /bin/sh with /bin/dash in the
middle of the development, I think it was to make sure to not invoke
bash. But (sorry for the repetition) I used to modify the shebang
everytime I tested a new version, and there was never any issue with
the shell.
There is no question here. *If* the script in question uses dash
spuriously, ie, it doesn't use features specific to dash but is actually
a Bourne shell script, replacing /bin/dash with /bin/sh should be
fine. If not, stuff is going to break sooner or later, either because
/bin/sh isn't really dash (eg, someone might use bash for that) or
because of difference between the busybox and Debian (d)ash forks.
There shouldn't be any "feature specific to dash", by
construction.
There are, "by construction". Eg, dash supports local, the POSIX /bin/sh
doesn't.
Then it seems Jude's scripts don't use that feature, and they
shouldn't.
Didier
_______________________________________________
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
