Re: Glibc ldd needs /bin/bash
Dan Nicholson wrote: On 3/14/07, Bruce Dubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matthew Burgess wrote: How about: The commandldd/command shell script contains Bash-specific syntax. Change its shebang line to force the script to be interpreted by Bash in case other shells (see link href=whateverBLFS/link) are installed and linked to filename class=symlink/bin/sh/filename later: I don't particularly like using the word 'shebang' in the book. It's slang and I think the book is a bit more formal than that. Unfortunately I don't really have a suggestion for a replacement that I really like. How about: Change its invocation (shebang) line to ... I'm going ahead with this now with my preferred default program interpreter. Anyone can feel free to change this that doesn't work for them. What's a program interpreter? I'd prefer default shell. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Glibc ldd needs /bin/bash
On 3/23/07, Bruce Dubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm going ahead with this now with my preferred default program interpreter. Anyone can feel free to change this that doesn't work for them. What's a program interpreter? I'd prefer default shell. When you set the shebang line, you're describing what program will interpret the file. It doesn't have to be a shell. It could be perl, python, awk, env, etc. We can use something besides program interpreter, but I don't think default shell is accurate for what we're doing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shebang_(Unix) -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Glibc ldd needs /bin/bash
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 03/23/07 19:01 CST: What's a program interpreter? I'd prefer default shell. Hopefully, Bruce is just joking. :-) I've been using the term since back in the days I was using a Tandy color computer with a 'basic' program interpreter cartridge plugged in. The shebang line doesn't have to be a shell. It can be any program that interprets the following lines in the file. Hence, 'program interpreter'. -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.28] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 19:06:00 up 14 days, 17:05, 1 user, load average: 1.11, 0.95, 0.47 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Glibc ldd needs /bin/bash
Randy McMurchy wrote: Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 03/23/07 19:01 CST: What's a program interpreter? I'd prefer default shell. Hopefully, Bruce is just joking. :-) I've been using the term since back in the days I was using a Tandy color computer with a 'basic' program interpreter cartridge plugged in. The shebang line doesn't have to be a shell. It can be any program that interprets the following lines in the file. Hence, 'program interpreter'. Of course I was joking. I forgot the :). Sorry about that. Actually, I was confused a little and thought we were discussing dash vs bash in general and not for a specific application. Program interpreter is fine in this context. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Glibc ldd needs /bin/bash
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 04:49, Dan Nicholson wrote: On 3/13/07, Matthew Burgess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday 12 March 2007 19:44, Dan Nicholson wrote: So, I'm proposing that we force /bin/bash as the shebang for ldd. Two possible ways are: 1. Prior to configure and changing dirs - sed -i 's|@BASH@|/bin/bash|' elf/ldd.in I like this option too. It's easy to explain exactly what that command does and ensure its effects are limited to just `ldd'. Suggestions on the explanation welcomed for this patch. How about: The commandldd/command shell script contains Bash-specific syntax. Change its shebang line to force the script to be interpreted by Bash in case other shells (see link href=whateverBLFS/link) are installed and linked to filename class=symlink/bin/sh/filename later: Obviously the markup will need to be fixed up a bit there, but hopefully you get the idea. Regards, Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Glibc ldd needs /bin/bash
On 3/13/07, Ag. Hatzimanikas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Mar 13, at 09:49 Dan Nicholson wrote: Suggestions on the explanation welcomed for this patch. As you miiight :) have noticed by now, I am not an expert in English language but ... inadvertantly shouldn't be inadvertently ? I was just testing you :) -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Glibc ldd needs /bin/bash
Matthew Burgess wrote: How about: The commandldd/command shell script contains Bash-specific syntax. Change its shebang line to force the script to be interpreted by Bash in case other shells (see link href=whateverBLFS/link) are installed and linked to filename class=symlink/bin/sh/filename later: I don't particularly like using the word 'shebang' in the book. It's slang and I think the book is a bit more formal than that. Unfortunately I don't really have a suggestion for a replacement that I really like. How about: Change its invocation (shebang) line to ... -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Glibc ldd needs /bin/bash
On 3/14/07, Bruce Dubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matthew Burgess wrote: How about: The commandldd/command shell script contains Bash-specific syntax. Change its shebang line to force the script to be interpreted by Bash in case other shells (see link href=whateverBLFS/link) are installed and linked to filename class=symlink/bin/sh/filename later: I don't particularly like using the word 'shebang' in the book. It's slang and I think the book is a bit more formal than that. Unfortunately I don't really have a suggestion for a replacement that I really like. How about: Change its invocation (shebang) line to ... Setting the shebang sets the interpreter for the script, whether it be bash, python, etc. So, you could say Change the script's default interpreter to be Bash in case ... -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Glibc ldd needs /bin/bash
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 03/14/07 11:26 CST: Change its invocation (shebang) line to ... Another suggestion: Change its program interpreter (shebang) line to ... -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.28] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 11:45:00 up 5 days, 9:44, 1 user, load average: 0.21, 0.12, 0.04 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Glibc ldd needs /bin/bash
On Wednesday 14 March 2007 16:45, Dan Nicholson wrote: On 3/14/07, Bruce Dubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matthew Burgess wrote: How about: The commandldd/command shell script contains Bash-specific syntax. Change its shebang line to force the script to be interpreted by Bash in case other shells (see link href=whateverBLFS/link) are installed and linked to filename class=symlink/bin/sh/filename later: I don't particularly like using the word 'shebang' in the book. It's slang and I think the book is a bit more formal than that. Unfortunately I don't really have a suggestion for a replacement that I really like. How about: Change its invocation (shebang) line to ... Setting the shebang sets the interpreter for the script, whether it be bash, python, etc. So, you could say Change the script's default interpreter to be Bash in case ... Doh! I actually had the word interpreter in there originally, then thought shebang might be understood more widely. I didn't even realize it was a slang term! So, yeah, I'm in favor of using interpreter or program interpreter instead of shebang. Regards, Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Glibc ldd needs /bin/bash
On Monday 12 March 2007 19:44, Dan Nicholson wrote: So, I'm proposing that we force /bin/bash as the shebang for ldd. Two possible ways are: 1. Prior to configure and changing dirs - sed -i 's|@BASH@|/bin/bash|' elf/ldd.in I like this option too. It's easy to explain exactly what that command does and ensure its effects are limited to just `ldd'. Thanks, Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Glibc ldd needs /bin/bash
On 3/13/07, Matthew Burgess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday 12 March 2007 19:44, Dan Nicholson wrote: So, I'm proposing that we force /bin/bash as the shebang for ldd. Two possible ways are: 1. Prior to configure and changing dirs - sed -i 's|@BASH@|/bin/bash|' elf/ldd.in I like this option too. It's easy to explain exactly what that command does and ensure its effects are limited to just `ldd'. Suggestions on the explanation welcomed for this patch. -- Dan Index: BOOK/chapter06/glibc.xml === --- BOOK/chapter06/glibc.xml (revision 7962) +++ BOOK/chapter06/glibc.xml (working copy) @@ -87,6 +87,14 @@ screenuserinputpatch -Np1 -i ../glibc-branch_update-patch;/userinput/screen +paraThe commandldd/command utility installed by Glibc is a Bash +script that will inadvertantly call command/bin/sh/command as its +interpreter. This can be a problem if a different shell is installed later +as command/bin/sh/command. Force commandbash/command to be used +with the following substitution:/para + +screenuserinputsed -i 's|@BASH@|/bin/bash|' elf/ldd.bash.in/userinput/screen + paraThe Glibc documentation recommends building Glibc outside of the source directory in a dedicated build directory:/para -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Glibc ldd needs /bin/bash
Following along with the POSIXification of 2007, I noticed that ldd is a bash script and will fail silently for non-bash /bin/sh. [12:25 PM [EMAIL PROTECTED] bash /usr/bin/ldd /lib/libc.so.6 /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0xb7f2b000) linux-gate.so.1 = (0xb7f2a000) [12:25 PM [EMAIL PROTECTED] dash /usr/bin/ldd /lib/libc.so.6 [12:26 PM [EMAIL PROTECTED] echo $? 2 The Glibc Makefile tries to be smart and substitutes in the value for $(BASH) in elf/ldd.in. The value for BASH is figured out in configure using the standard autoconf macro AC_PATH_PROG. It will do a PATH search for bash unless the variable $BASH is set in the environment, indicating that the user wants to override the location. When we run ./configure in Ch. 6, /bin/sh is executed, which is a link to bash. This sets BASH=/bin/sh in the environment, so that gets recorded by AC_PATH_PROG and subsequently substituted in /usr/bin/ldd for the shebang (run head -n1 /usr/bin/ldd). You can see this happen if /bin/sh - bash on your system: $ /bin/sh -c declare -p BASH declare -- BASH=/bin/sh $ /bin/bash -c declare -p BASH declare -- BASH=/bin/bash This isn't a problem if /bin/sh - bash always. But if you later install a new sh, ldd will bomb. So, I'm proposing that we force /bin/bash as the shebang for ldd. Two possible ways are: 1. Prior to configure and changing dirs - sed -i 's|@BASH@|/bin/bash|' elf/ldd.in 2. Just override the var during make - make BASH=/bin/bash What do you guys think? -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Glibc ldd needs /bin/bash
Dan Nicholson wrote: I noticed that ldd is a bash script and will fail silently for non-bash /bin/sh. And I briefly thought well, could we patch ldd to make it POSIX? Then I saw the script itself. Never mind. ;-) So, I'm proposing that we force /bin/bash as the shebang for ldd. Two possible ways are: 1. Prior to configure and changing dirs - sed -i 's|@BASH@|/bin/bash|' elf/ldd.in 2. Just override the var during make - make BASH=/bin/bash What do you guys think? I like 1. I'm not sure what else in the glibc autofoo may depend on the value that configure comes up with for $BASH; hopefully there isn't anything, but I don't think it's safe to depend on that. The first is much more specific; it only targets the ldd script instead of everything that uses $BASH. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: Glibc ldd needs /bin/bash
On 3/12/07, Bryan Kadzban [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dan Nicholson wrote: I noticed that ldd is a bash script and will fail silently for non-bash /bin/sh. And I briefly thought well, could we patch ldd to make it POSIX? Then I saw the script itself. Never mind. ;-) Yeah, it's pretty hairy. Or, at least it has more knowledge about ld.so than I could claim to have. There is a target in the Makefile that seems like it tries to rewrite the script if configure didn't detect that you have bash-2+. You can look at the Makefile in elf/ and look for something like sh-ldd-rewrite. But we have bash, so I see no reason not to use it if that's what they had in mind. So, I'm proposing that we force /bin/bash as the shebang for ldd. Two possible ways are: 1. Prior to configure and changing dirs - sed -i 's|@BASH@|/bin/bash|' elf/ldd.in 2. Just override the var during make - make BASH=/bin/bash What do you guys think? I like 1. I'm not sure what else in the glibc autofoo may depend on the value that configure comes up with for $BASH; hopefully there isn't anything, but I don't think it's safe to depend on that. The first is much more specific; it only targets the ldd script instead of everything that uses $BASH. Seems like a good idea. I'll wait a bit longer to see if anyone else wants to chime in. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
