Re: /bin/bash -> /bin/sh
> > On Tue, May 25, 1999 at 03:15:39PM -0400, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Can you be specific and point me to what fails. if it is a matter of making > > ash posix happy, it will be done -- we have the code. Bash is just way too > > heavy for many things. > > > > You could also provide another posix complient bourne shell. > > I was not speaking from knowledge of code in ash, so I couldn't be more > specific. Run tests/posix.tests (from the bash source directory) through > ash, and it will say what tests were failed. > Thanks, will do.
Re: /bin/bash -> /bin/sh
On Tue, May 25, 1999 at 03:15:39PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Can you be specific and point me to what fails. if it is a matter of making > ash posix happy, it will be done -- we have the code. Bash is just way too > heavy for many things. > > You could also provide another posix complient bourne shell. I was not speaking from knowledge of code in ash, so I couldn't be more specific. Run tests/posix.tests (from the bash source directory) through ash, and it will say what tests were failed. -- Eric Gillespie, Jr. <*> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Don't you try to out-weird me! I get stranger things than you free with my breakfast cereal! --Zaphod Beeblebrox
Re: /bin/bash -> /bin/sh
> > This is not a good idea. Ash is Bourne-compatible, but not POSIX, which > bash is. That's why bash is used as sh. Install the bash source and look > in the tests/ directory. Run the file posix.tests with bash, and it > passes every test. Ash fails 8 of the tests. > Can you be specific and point me to what fails. if it is a matter of making ash posix happy, it will be done -- we have the code. Bash is just way too heavy for many things. You could also provide another posix complient bourne shell.
Re: /bin/bash -> /bin/sh
On Sun, May 23, 1999 at 11:30:37AM -0500, Brad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 23 May 1999, Werner Reisberger wrote: > > > I would really aprecciate if the debian base system uses in all important > > system scripts /bin/sh. It would be also safer to use for sh not a symbolic > > link to bash but instead to ash or another bourne compatible shell to avoid > > problems if the bash is broken. > > IIRC, they're trying to do this. But first they have to get rid of the > bash-isms from those scripts, and from a lot of other scripts that use > /bin/sh expecting it to be bash. > > Just out of curiousity, which important startup script has the /bin/bash? > So i can watch out for it if i ever have a broken bash > This is not a good idea. Ash is Bourne-compatible, but not POSIX, which bash is. That's why bash is used as sh. Install the bash source and look in the tests/ directory. Run the file posix.tests with bash, and it passes every test. Ash fails 8 of the tests. -- Eric Gillespie, Jr. <*> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Don't you try to out-weird me! I get stranger things than you free with my breakfast cereal! --Zaphod Beeblebrox
Re: /bin/bash -> /bin/sh
On Sun, May 23, 1999 at 11:30:37AM -0500, Brad wrote: > Just out of curiousity, which important startup script has the /bin/bash? > So i can watch out for it if i ever have a broken bash I had bash in /etc/init.d/rcS (hamm). -Werner
Re: /bin/bash -> /bin/sh
On Sun, 23 May 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > cd /etc/init.d and grep for bash. My machine uses ash for /bin/sh and I > have no problems. If you find bash scripts that need not be bash, let the > maintainer know. i did do that before i sent the first message. The only two i found were two that i had written myself when i was first setting things up. So i asked, since the one the poster was complaining about would either have been slink and fixed in potato or would be in a package i don't have installed.
Re: /bin/bash -> /bin/sh
> > On Sun, 23 May 1999, Werner Reisberger wrote: > > > I would really aprecciate if the debian base system uses in all important > > system scripts /bin/sh. It would be also safer to use for sh not a symbolic > > link to bash but instead to ash or another bourne compatible shell to avoid > > problems if the bash is broken. > > IIRC, they're trying to do this. But first they have to get rid of the > bash-isms from those scripts, and from a lot of other scripts that use > /bin/sh expecting it to be bash. > > Just out of curiousity, which important startup script has the /bin/bash? > So i can watch out for it if i ever have a broken bash > cd /etc/init.d and grep for bash. My machine uses ash for /bin/sh and I have no problems. If you find bash scripts that need not be bash, let the maintainer know.
Re: /bin/bash -> /bin/sh
On Sun, 23 May 1999, Werner Reisberger wrote: > I would really aprecciate if the debian base system uses in all important > system scripts /bin/sh. It would be also safer to use for sh not a symbolic > link to bash but instead to ash or another bourne compatible shell to avoid > problems if the bash is broken. IIRC, they're trying to do this. But first they have to get rid of the bash-isms from those scripts, and from a lot of other scripts that use /bin/sh expecting it to be bash. Just out of curiousity, which important startup script has the /bin/bash? So i can watch out for it if i ever have a broken bash
Re: /bin/bash -> /bin/sh
*- On 23 May, Werner Reisberger wrote about "/bin/bash -> /bin/sh" > Some times ago I had a bad experience with the libreadline package. > The installation failed because a required package wasn't installed. That's > ok, but the libreadline package had already replaced my bash with another > one which wasn't working anymore. The bash couldn't be executed because > the dynamically linked libreadline wasn't installed. > > Since I wasn't able to login anymore, I booted the system with a boot disk > and replaced the symbolic link bash -> sh with tcsh -> sh. It was still not ^^^ This is a very BAD IDEA. The two shells are not functionally compatible. In fact I am supprised you are not getting all kinds of errors due to this. The right choice would have been to link ash->sh or zsh->sh or other sh-compatible shells. Csh and tcsh are NOT sh-compatible. > possible to boot because at least one important startup script (rcS) > contained #!/bin/bash instead of #!/bin/sh (I realized this later after > installing a new base package and hours of work). > Any system script that explicitly requires bash is considered a bug. This was discussed at length on debian-devel last year. Look for the thread about bashisms. If you find a system level boot script that calls bash check the bug tracking system to see if a bug has already been filed, if not file a bug. > I reported the problem with libreadline to the package maintainer (and the bug > list) without getting a response. > I would imagine you were not the only one. Did you use the bug program to report the bug? > I would really aprecciate if the debian base system uses in all important > system scripts /bin/sh. It would be also safer to use for sh not a symbolic > link to bash but instead to ash or another bourne compatible shell to avoid > problems if the bash is broken. > See above. You are right, this is how it is supposed to be. -- Brian - Mechanical Engineering [EMAIL PROTECTED] Purdue University http://www.ecn.purdue.edu/~servis -
/bin/bash -> /bin/sh
Some times ago I had a bad experience with the libreadline package. The installation failed because a required package wasn't installed. That's ok, but the libreadline package had already replaced my bash with another one which wasn't working anymore. The bash couldn't be executed because the dynamically linked libreadline wasn't installed. Since I wasn't able to login anymore, I booted the system with a boot disk and replaced the symbolic link bash -> sh with tcsh -> sh. It was still not possible to boot because at least one important startup script (rcS) contained #!/bin/bash instead of #!/bin/sh (I realized this later after installing a new base package and hours of work). I reported the problem with libreadline to the package maintainer (and the bug list) without getting a response. I would really aprecciate if the debian base system uses in all important system scripts /bin/sh. It would be also safer to use for sh not a symbolic link to bash but instead to ash or another bourne compatible shell to avoid problems if the bash is broken. -Werner
