On 22/04/2019 05:55, Jeremy Huntwork via lfs-dev wrote: > On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 8:37 PM Bruce Dubbs <bruce.du...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I wasn't asking because of any personal preference. I just noticed >>> that out of the box Ubuntu fails this test because /bin/sh is a >>> symlink to /bin/dash, and I was wondering if this is truly a hard >>> requirement. >> >> Yes and yes. > > Sorry, I don't understand how it's a hard requirement. Especially > since you also said later "it's just an advisory". I'm not intending > to argue, I'd just like to understand. > > Anyway, here's a version of that script which will actually exit with > an error status if any requirements aren't met: > https://gist.github.com/jhuntwork/e57571e3cbe78d970c6edeee5e42d36b I > tried to make it easy to read and amend. Feel free to use it if you > like, or ignore it if you don't. >
I think the problem is (1): - debian symlinks /bin/sh->dash out of the box (looks like ubuntu does the same) - dash in debian is (1) an old version, and the maintainer of dash for debian does (or did) not want to update to a more recent version. That outdated version is not fully POSIX compatible - packages using /bin/sh expect it to be fully POSIX compatible, and sometimes break when using the old debian /bin/dash. Now, I've inadvertently built LFS several times with /bin/sh->dash (it's not tested in jhalfs...), and the build was successful... Pierre (1) replace all (1)'s with: (or was: I've not checked for a while) -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
