Sean McGrath - Sun Microsystems Ireland wrote:
This is the Asterisk PBX right ?
It is.
Asterisk seems to be dependant on gnu utils rather than posix compliant utils.
Yeah. Changing the set of used utilities is not a problem and with
little tweaking I always manage to compile the thing. H
Josip Gracin stated:
< Shawn Walker wrote:
< >POSIX requires that you get a POSIX shell if you type "sh" after you
< >did setup a POSIX compliant PATH"
< >
< >So, there's nothing disturbing about this at all.
<
< Shawn, I would appreciate an advice on the following situation then:
<
< I'm trying
Steven Sim wrote:
But I have been telling (shouting actually) people to ALWAYS ALWAYS
start their scripts with a #!
Forgive me if I am totally off topic here, but are you guys (and gals?)
saying that it is not necessary??
Well, not exactly. But there exists a problem which sometimes, in
Hi All;
Please forgive me for butting in.
But I have been telling (shouting actually) people to ALWAYS ALWAYS
start their scripts with a #!
Forgive me if I am totally off topic here, but are you guys (and gals?)
saying that it is not necessary??
Warmest Regards
Steven Sim
Darren J Mof
Greetings,
> I'm trying to port a software called Asterisk to Solaris. The software
> uses XPG4-compliant shell scripts in its build process. [..]
I have an Asterisk Server running on top of Solaris 10 SPARC from which I
have succesfully installed from cvs.
I don't remember having to change any
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
BTW: we then would need a syscall to set up the user's POSIX compliance level.
Why does it need to be a syscall ?
Because (if you like to handle #! in the kernel as before) the kernel needs to
know the PA
Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > BTW: we then would need a syscall to set up the user's POSIX compliance
> > level.
>
> Why does it need to be a syscall ?
Because (if you like to handle #! in the kernel as before) the kernel needs to
know the PATH to the right shell.
Jörg
--
E
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> What's the effect of .POSIX in the makefiles? (That is sufficient for
> "make" and derivatives on Solaris. But it's not sifficient for gmake.)
gmake is inherently POSIX incompatible as it's makefile parser is wrong.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schi
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Frank Hofmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A file which starts with #!/path/to/interpreter, is technically an
implementation defined file.
Is the "empty" #! (no explicit pathname given) ok ?
This sounds like a very interesting idea!
You should have mentioned in the prev
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I can't be sure what make does, but if a script is executable and starts
>> with ":" or even just "#" the shell will fail the exec and will run
>> the script with $SHELL script.
>
>Indeed, this is one solution! If I remove #! from all scripts,
>determine the XPG4-com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can't be sure what make does, but if a script is executable and starts
with ":" or even just "#" the shell will fail the exec and will run
the script with $SHELL script.
Indeed, this is one solution! If I remove #! from all scripts,
determine the XPG4-compliant shel
Frank Hofmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > A file which starts with #!/path/to/interpreter, is technically an
> > implementation defined file.
>
> Is the "empty" #! (no explicit pathname given) ok ?
This sounds like a very interesting idea!
You should have mentioned in the previous POSIX discu
>if [ -x /usr/xpg4/bin/sh -a "$_" != /usr/xpg4/bin/sh ]; then
> exec /usr/xpg4/bin/sh $0 $*
Certainly you will need:
> exec /usr/xpg4/bin/sh $0 "$@"
But you can't test on $_ in shell scripts.
Casper
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing li
>Is the "empty" #! (no explicit pathname given) ok ?
Anything which cases "execve" to return ENOEXEC is fair game.
>How would I select, as admin/user, which 'default' that'd evaluate to ?
You don't; because a POSIX compliant shell will run such a script
in a POSIX compliant shell all you need t
Josip Gracin wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But first tell us what exactly is standards complaint about:
#!/bin/sh
Please note that I did NOT claim this to be either standard or correct
in any of my posts, nor do I require for this to remain in the scripts.
It can be changed.
Probab
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not sure I understand you correctly. Are you suggesting that I
should avoid #! and use explicit invocation of shell interpreter to run
scripts?
If you want to have a bigger chance of executing the script in a
POSIX shell.
This is the only wa
>I am not sure I understand you correctly. Are you suggesting that I
>should avoid #! and use explicit invocation of shell interpreter to run
>scripts?
If you want to have a bigger chance of executing the script in a
POSIX shell.
This is the only way the standard provides for executing script
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But first tell us what exactly is standards complaint about:
#!/bin/sh
Please note that I did NOT claim this to be either standard or correct
in any of my posts, nor do I require for this to remain in the scripts.
It can be changed.
Probably, if you want t
>Shawn Walker wrote:
>> POSIX requires that you get a POSIX shell if you type "sh" after you
>> did setup a POSIX compliant PATH"
>>
>> So, there's nothing disturbing about this at all.
>
>Shawn, I would appreciate an advice on the following situation then:
>
>I'm trying to port a software called
Shawn Walker wrote:
POSIX requires that you get a POSIX shell if you type "sh" after you
did setup a POSIX compliant PATH"
So, there's nothing disturbing about this at all.
Shawn, I would appreciate an advice on the following situation then:
I'm trying to port a software called Asterisk to So
>> I have several standard-compliant shell scripts.
>> These scripts use
>> #!/bin/sh'. However, since /bin/sh on Solaris is not
>>
>> standard-compliant, these scripts fail.
>
>How very interesting. Would you please list what exactly is it that fails,
>best with the snippets
of code that fa
UNIX admin wrote:
>> I have several standard-compliant shell scripts.
>> These scripts use
>> #!/bin/sh'. However, since /bin/sh on Solaris is not
>>
>> standard-compliant, these scripts fail.
>
> How very interesting. Would you please list what exactly is it that
fails, best with the snippets
> I have several standard-compliant shell scripts.
> These scripts use
> #!/bin/sh'. However, since /bin/sh on Solaris is not
>
> standard-compliant, these scripts fail.
How very interesting. Would you please list what exactly is it that fails, best
with the snippets of code that fail?
Th
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Josip Gracin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>> You could make the first line of the scripts:
> >>> #!/usr/bin/env sh
> >> That is what I thought. Shouldn't this become the
> law then? ;-) I
> >
> > No, because it opens security issues.
24 matches
Mail list logo
