On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 12:35:04PM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote:
[]
> > > +$(error bash is required to build the kernel)
> > > +endif
> > > +SHELL := $(CONFIG_SHELL)
> >
> > here is policy to have `bash' introduced, so due to original
> > issue, where `root' users ended with removed /dev/null, may
Hi,
On Fri, 9 Feb 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
> > - else if [ -x /bin/bash ]; then echo /bin/bash; \
> > - else echo sh; fi ; fi)
> > + else if [ -x /bin/bash ]; then echo /bin/bash; fi; fi)
> > +ifeq ($(CONFIG_SHELL),)
> > +$(error bash is required to build the kernel)
> > +endif
> >
Hi,
On Fri, 9 Feb 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
- else if [ -x /bin/bash ]; then echo /bin/bash; \
- else echo sh; fi ; fi)
+ else if [ -x /bin/bash ]; then echo /bin/bash; fi; fi)
+ifeq ($(CONFIG_SHELL),)
+$(error bash is required to build the kernel)
+endif
+SHELL :=
On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 12:35:04PM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote:
[]
+$(error bash is required to build the kernel)
+endif
+SHELL := $(CONFIG_SHELL)
here is policy to have `bash' introduced, so due to original
issue, where `root' users ended with removed /dev/null, may policy to have
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 10:48:51PM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote:
[]
> - printf has other side effects, instead stop pretending we support
> something else than bash
More on printf, `sh', tmpfiles.
As we know original problem is: something from binutils is removing
output files on failure.
> -
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 00:20:49 +0100, Roman Zippel said:
> > The point is, neither $BASH nor /bin/bash may be set.
>
> Is that really a problem? I think any system that has bash without
> /bin/bash is simply broken.
If you're trying to bootstrap a Linux box onto a new platform from some
non-Linux
Hi,
On Fri, 9 Feb 2007, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > - printf has other side effects, instead stop pretending we support
> > something else than bash
>
> printf is a much better echo, but you need to use it properly as well.
> Either use %s to print
Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - printf has other side effects, instead stop pretending we support
> something else than bash
printf is a much better echo, but you need to use it properly as well.
Either use %s to print a literal string or %b to let it interpret escape
sequences.
Hi,
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Roman Zippel wrote:
>
> > I don't quite understand, the Makefile doesn't care anymore about /bin/sh
> > with this patch, the Makefile checks only for $BASH and /bin/bash
>
> Exactly.
>
> The point is, neither $BASH nor
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Roman Zippel wrote:
> I don't quite understand, the Makefile doesn't care anymore about /bin/sh
> with this patch, the Makefile checks only for $BASH and /bin/bash
Exactly.
The point is, neither $BASH nor /bin/bash may be set.
If you run make while running tcsh, "BASH"
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 10:48:51PM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote:
[]
> - printf has other side effects, instead stop pretending we support
> something else than bash
Yes. With `%' in option strings there will be side effects.
I would suggest to use
printf %s "$(1)"
with "paranoia mode on",
Hi,
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Historically, people used to do:
> - /bin/sh was the "standard shell" (bash)
> - /bin/[t]csh is what clueless weenies use for interactive work.
>
> (Yeah, I'm not a [t]csh fan ;)
>
> And you did break that.
>
> It's quite possible that all
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Roman Zippel wrote:
>
> Sorry for the delay, but the git server were gone.
>
> - the define command is inappropriate (it's primarily for rule
> definitions)
Looks fine. Especially considering the strange whitespace issues.
> - execute commands in the current dir as all
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 10:48:51PM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This adds the remaining changes which should have been part of the review
> process. Oleg could have learned something in process, but who needs that
> if wasting everyones time is so much more fun...
>
> Sorry for the
Hi,
This adds the remaining changes which should have been part of the review
process. Oleg could have learned something in process, but who needs that
if wasting everyones time is so much more fun...
Sorry for the delay, but the git server were gone.
- the define command is inappropriate
Hi,
This adds the remaining changes which should have been part of the review
process. Oleg could have learned something in process, but who needs that
if wasting everyones time is so much more fun...
Sorry for the delay, but the git server were gone.
- the define command is inappropriate
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 10:48:51PM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote:
Hi,
This adds the remaining changes which should have been part of the review
process. Oleg could have learned something in process, but who needs that
if wasting everyones time is so much more fun...
Sorry for the delay, but
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Roman Zippel wrote:
Sorry for the delay, but the git server were gone.
- the define command is inappropriate (it's primarily for rule
definitions)
Looks fine. Especially considering the strange whitespace issues.
- execute commands in the current dir as all other
Hi,
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Historically, people used to do:
- /bin/sh was the standard shell (bash)
- /bin/[t]csh is what clueless weenies use for interactive work.
(Yeah, I'm not a [t]csh fan ;)
And you did break that.
It's quite possible that all modern
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 10:48:51PM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote:
[]
- printf has other side effects, instead stop pretending we support
something else than bash
Yes. With `%' in option strings there will be side effects.
I would suggest to use
printf %s $(1)
with paranoia mode on, and
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Roman Zippel wrote:
I don't quite understand, the Makefile doesn't care anymore about /bin/sh
with this patch, the Makefile checks only for $BASH and /bin/bash
Exactly.
The point is, neither $BASH nor /bin/bash may be set.
If you run make while running tcsh, BASH
Hi,
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Roman Zippel wrote:
I don't quite understand, the Makefile doesn't care anymore about /bin/sh
with this patch, the Makefile checks only for $BASH and /bin/bash
Exactly.
The point is, neither $BASH nor /bin/bash may
Roman Zippel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- printf has other side effects, instead stop pretending we support
something else than bash
printf is a much better echo, but you need to use it properly as well.
Either use %s to print a literal string or %b to let it interpret escape
sequences.
Hi,
On Fri, 9 Feb 2007, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Roman Zippel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- printf has other side effects, instead stop pretending we support
something else than bash
printf is a much better echo, but you need to use it properly as well.
Either use %s to print a literal
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 00:20:49 +0100, Roman Zippel said:
The point is, neither $BASH nor /bin/bash may be set.
Is that really a problem? I think any system that has bash without
/bin/bash is simply broken.
If you're trying to bootstrap a Linux box onto a new platform from some
non-Linux
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 10:48:51PM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote:
[]
- printf has other side effects, instead stop pretending we support
something else than bash
More on printf, `sh', tmpfiles.
As we know original problem is: something from binutils is removing
output files on failure.
-
26 matches
Mail list logo
