Re: ALERT: XFree86 4.1.0-3 maintainer scripts hosed; please wait for 4.1.0-4
John Hasler wrote: There is no need to make ash your system shell just because a few packages depend on it. Of course the fact that ash is: * much, much faster * less memory hungry * unlikely to teach you bad habits, if you care about learning proper POSIX shell scripting Are all good reasons to make it your default shell. -- see shy jo
Re: ALERT: XFree86 4.1.0-3 maintainer scripts hosed; please wait for 4.1.0-4
On Sat, Sep 01, 2001 at 09:58:05PM -0500, John Hasler wrote: | dman wrote: | I use bash as my shell. However the depends for initrd and/or | kernel-image want ash,... | | Fine, but if they really need it they have to call it as 'ash' or they are | buggy. I guess you mean at runtime, not in the Depends: line. I would agree with you on that. | ...so /bin/sh is ash. | | You shouldn't need that: see above. While in theory /bin/sh - ash should [...] | There is no need to make ash your system shell just because a few packages | depend on it. Right, but I figured I might as well have a more compact system shell since bash is specified as my login shell anyways. I shouldn't notice a difference, unless I track memory usage closely (because ash should use less memory than bash for scripts that use /bin/sh). | work since all maintainer scripts that use /bin/sh are supposed to be free | of bashisms, in practice there may still be a few that aren't. That would become a (my) problem, and I guess that would be up to me to debug on my system (or just switch shells) :-). The X 4.1.0-3 install scripts are an example that makes your point. | Craig Dickson wrote: | I have ash installed also, but my /bin/sh -- bash. So I don't think that | the ash install script makes that association,... | | Of course not. ash does not conflict with bash. Why should it? It's just | another shell, like tcsh and ksh. It just installs itself as /bin/ash and | leaves /bin/sh alone. Actually, IIRC, it uses debconf and asks you if you want /bin/sh to point to ash or whether you want it left alone. | I can't find any kernel-image package that depends on ash, and initrd-tools | wants it so that it can put it in the image (bash is too big). I didn't look at the individual dependencies, I just tried to remove ash to see what would disappear. As initrd-tools depends on ash, and kernel-image depends on initrd-tools both would disappear as a result of removing ash. Ok, running 'dpkg-reconfigure ash' brings up that dialog that asks whether or not I want to make /bin/sh point to ash. -D
Re: ALERT: XFree86 4.1.0-3 maintainer scripts hosed; please wait for 4.1.0-4
On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Craig Dickson wrote: dman wrote: I use bash as my shell. However the depends for initrd and/or kernel-image want ash, so /bin/sh is ash. I have ash installed also, but my /bin/sh -- bash. So I don't think that the ash install script makes that association, at least not if it's already pointing elsewhere. It shouldn't. /bin/sh - /bin/bash in all cases unless you do weird things. There have been some corner cases where a postinst script overwrote the link, but they've all been reported as bugs and fixed. Craig -- EMACS == Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
Re: ALERT: XFree86 4.1.0-3 maintainer scripts hosed; please wait for 4.1.0-4
dman wrote: I use bash as my shell. However the depends for initrd and/or kernel-image want ash,... Fine, but if they really need it they have to call it as 'ash' or they are buggy. ...so /bin/sh is ash. You shouldn't need that: see above. While in theory /bin/sh - ash should work since all maintainer scripts that use /bin/sh are supposed to be free of bashisms, in practice there may still be a few that aren't. Craig Dickson wrote: I have ash installed also, but my /bin/sh -- bash. So I don't think that the ash install script makes that association,... Of course not. ash does not conflict with bash. Why should it? It's just another shell, like tcsh and ksh. It just installs itself as /bin/ash and leaves /bin/sh alone. I can't find any kernel-image package that depends on ash, and initrd-tools wants it so that it can put it in the image (bash is too big). There is no need to make ash your system shell just because a few packages depend on it. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, Wisconsin
Re: ALERT: XFree86 4.1.0-3 maintainer scripts hosed; please wait for 4.1.0-4
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 08:23:55PM -0700, Craig Dickson wrote: | Branden Robinson wrote: | | * if your /bin/sh is ash, you will likely have this problem | | Why would this be the case? I thought all Debian systems (well, I don't | know about pre-Potato versions) had /bin/sh as a symlink pointing to bash. | Wouldn't it sort of be asking for problems to have a non-standard /bin/sh? A non-standard /bin/sh would be one that isn't POSIX conformant. Watch what happens if I try and remove ash : # apt-get remove ash Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done The following packages will be REMOVED: ash initrd-tools kernel-image-2.4.8-386 0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 3 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 0B of archives. After unpacking 22.7MB will be freed. Do you want to continue? [Y/n] n Abort. # Not a good thing, I still want a kernel ;-). -D
Re: ALERT: XFree86 4.1.0-3 maintainer scripts hosed; please wait for 4.1.0-4
on Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 12:54:40AM -0400, dman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 08:23:55PM -0700, Craig Dickson wrote: | Branden Robinson wrote: | | * if your /bin/sh is ash, you will likely have this problem | | Why would this be the case? I thought all Debian systems (well, I don't | know about pre-Potato versions) had /bin/sh as a symlink pointing to bash. | Wouldn't it sort of be asking for problems to have a non-standard /bin/sh? A non-standard /bin/sh would be one that isn't POSIX conformant. Watch what happens if I try and remove ash : # apt-get remove ash Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done The following packages will be REMOVED: ash initrd-tools kernel-image-2.4.8-386 0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 3 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 0B of archives. After unpacking 22.7MB will be freed. Do you want to continue? [Y/n] n Abort. # Not a good thing, I still want a kernel ;-). Do you not have a POSIX shell on your system? The bash shell is also confirmant to the IEEE Posix Shell and Tools specification (IEEE Working Group 1003.2). The main advantage of ash is that it's 1/5 the size of bash, though with some limitations in functionality. Command line editing is one biggie for interactive use...hmmm...turns out ash now has vi mode editing, and apparently emacs. Though I can't seem to get either to work. -- Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.com http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of Gestalt don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ http://www.kuro5hin.org Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA!http://www.freesklyarov.org Geek for Hirehttp://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html pgpl1pAUS0Yg8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ALERT: XFree86 4.1.0-3 maintainer scripts hosed; please wait for 4.1.0-4
On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, Branden Robinson wrote: Folks might want to wait for 4.1.0-4. I'm preparing it now. Several bugs have already been filed; no one needs to add to them. The problem is understood, and the fix has been written and tested. If you already have 4.1.0-3 installed successfully, there is nothing to worry about. Data points: * the problem is in the preinst and postinst scripts of several of the packages, including ones that almost everyone has installed * if your /bin/sh is ash, you will likely have this problem and just in case it is not obvious (or too scary)... If you have sh linked to ash: $ rm /bin/sh $ ln -s /bin/bash /bin/sh dselect - install, or whatever ...is now working away to install the 58 broken packages I accumulated over the last couple of upgrades. Branden, is there anyone who should not do the above? - Bruce
Re: ALERT: XFree86 4.1.0-3 maintainer scripts hosed; please wait for 4.1.0-4
On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 12:33:08AM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote: snip and just in case it is not obvious (or too scary)... If you have sh linked to ash: $ rm /bin/sh $ ln -s /bin/bash /bin/sh dselect - install, or whatever ...is now working away to install the 58 broken packages I accumulated over the last couple of upgrades. Branden, is there anyone who should not do the above? Yes, almost everyone. The proper command is 'dpkg --purge ash'. Zephaniah E. Hull. - Bruce -- 1024D/E65A7801 Zephaniah E. Hull [EMAIL PROTECTED] 92ED 94E4 B1E6 3624 226D 5727 4453 008B E65A 7801 CCs of replies from mailing lists are requested. My kid brother tells me Visual Age for Java is the cat's pajamas I'm not a cat person, but I can just imagine the reaction of your average feline to someone's attempt to stuff it into a pair of pajamas. Now picture your hard disk after the thing installs. -- Berry Kercheval and Graham Reed on ASR. pgp2SYNXIp16L.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ALERT: XFree86 4.1.0-3 maintainer scripts hosed; please wait for 4.1.0-4
You should NOT purge the ash package if you, by any means need something called 'initrd' or 'kernel-image'. -- Ma che mistero, e la mia vita, che mistero! Sono un peccatore dell'anno ottantamila, un menzognero! Ma dove sono e cosa faccio, come vivo? Vivo nell'anima del mondo perso nel vivere profondo! - Original Message - From: Zephaniah E. Hull [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Bruce Sass [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; debian-x@lists.debian.org; debian-devel@lists.debian.org; debian-user@lists.debian.org Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 2:54 PM Subject: Re: ALERT: XFree86 4.1.0-3 maintainer scripts hosed; please wait for 4.1.0-4
Re: ALERT: XFree86 4.1.0-3 maintainer scripts hosed; please wait for 4.1.0-4
On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote: On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 12:33:08AM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote: snip and just in case it is not obvious (or too scary)... If you have sh linked to ash: $ rm /bin/sh $ ln -s /bin/bash /bin/sh dselect - install, or whatever ...is now working away to install the 58 broken packages I accumulated over the last couple of upgrades. Branden, is there anyone who should not do the above? Yes, almost everyone. The proper command is 'dpkg --purge ash'. Seems a little heavy handed to me. Ash is not broken, it just needs to be moved out of the way. Dselect is done... ln -s /bin/ash /bin/sh and all is well again. - Bruce
Re: ALERT: XFree86 4.1.0-3 maintainer scripts hosed; please wait for 4.1.0-4
Folks, just so you know, cc'ing Branden on mail also sent to two mailing lists that he reads is not a recipe for avoiding being turned into a toasty flamed thing. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ALERT: XFree86 4.1.0-3 maintainer scripts hosed; please wait for 4.1.0-4
On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 12:33:08AM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote: and just in case it is not obvious (or too scary)... If you have sh linked to ash: $ rm /bin/sh $ ln -s /bin/bash /bin/sh dselect - install, or whatever ...is now working away to install the 58 broken packages I accumulated over the last couple of upgrades. Branden, is there anyone who should not do the above? Nobody should do that: if something goes wrong between the two commands, you won't have a /bin/sh! That's *BAD*. Much better is the single command: $ ln -sf bash /bin/sh Julian -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://people.debian.org/~jdg
Re: ALERT: XFree86 4.1.0-3 maintainer scripts hosed; please wait for 4.1.0-4
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 10:31:29PM -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote: | on Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 12:54:40AM -0400, dman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: | On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 08:23:55PM -0700, Craig Dickson wrote: | | Branden Robinson wrote: | | | | * if your /bin/sh is ash, you will likely have this problem | | | | Why would this be the case? I thought all Debian systems (well, I don't | | know about pre-Potato versions) had /bin/sh as a symlink pointing to bash. | | Wouldn't it sort of be asking for problems to have a non-standard /bin/sh? | | A non-standard /bin/sh would be one that isn't POSIX conformant. | Watch what happens if I try and remove ash : | | # apt-get remove ash | Reading Package Lists... Done | Building Dependency Tree... Done | The following packages will be REMOVED: |ash initrd-tools kernel-image-2.4.8-386 | 0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 3 to remove and 0 not upgraded. | Need to get 0B of archives. After unpacking 22.7MB will be freed. | Do you want to continue? [Y/n] n | Abort. | | # | | Not a good thing, I still want a kernel ;-). | | Do you not have a POSIX shell on your system? The bash shell is also | confirmant to the IEEE Posix Shell and Tools specification (IEEE Working | Group 1003.2). I use bash as my shell. However the depends for initrd and/or kernel-image want ash, so /bin/sh is ash. Maybe that should be changed to POSIX_shell or something, and have bash and ash provide POSIX_shell? | The main advantage of ash is that it's 1/5 the size of bash, though with | some limitations in functionality. Command line editing is one | biggie for interactive use...hmmm...turns out ash now has vi mode | editing, and apparently emacs. Though I can't seem to get either to | work. I know that ash doesn't handle color-code escapes like bash does. Apparently it does handle export FOO='bar', but /bin/sh on Solaris needs 2 separate lines for it. If ash uses readline then you should be able to get vi or emacs line editing to work by having one of set editing-mode vi # for vi set editing-mode emacs # for emacs in ~/.inputrc or /etc/inputrc. -D
Re: ALERT: XFree86 4.1.0-3 maintainer scripts hosed; please wait for 4.1.0-4
dman wrote: I use bash as my shell. However the depends for initrd and/or kernel-image want ash, so /bin/sh is ash. I have ash installed also, but my /bin/sh -- bash. So I don't think that the ash install script makes that association, at least not if it's already pointing elsewhere. Craig
Re: ALERT: XFree86 4.1.0-3 maintainer scripts hosed; please wait for 4.1.0-4
On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 09:26:42AM -0700, Craig Dickson wrote: | dman wrote: | | I use bash as my shell. However the depends for initrd and/or | kernel-image want ash, so /bin/sh is ash. | | I have ash installed also, but my /bin/sh -- bash. So I don't think that | the ash install script makes that association, at least not if it's | already pointing elsewhere. I recall something asking if I wanted /bin/sh to be ash or not, and telling me that ash is POSIX compliant and any POSIX compliant shell can be used for /bin/sh. I don't remember if it was Debian or cygwin that asked me. I think I said yes, but I'm not at my Debian box so I can't check it. -D
ALERT: XFree86 4.1.0-3 maintainer scripts hosed; please wait for 4.1.0-4
Folks might want to wait for 4.1.0-4. I'm preparing it now. Several bugs have already been filed; no one needs to add to them. The problem is understood, and the fix has been written and tested. If you already have 4.1.0-3 installed successfully, there is nothing to worry about. Data points: * the problem is in the preinst and postinst scripts of several of the packages, including ones that almost everyone has installed * if your /bin/sh is ash, you will likely have this problem * if your filesystem is screwed up so that my check_symlinks_and_bomb() shell function needs to call analyze_path(), you will have this problem no matter what your shell script interpreter is I apologize for the screwup. My own system met neither of the above criteria, so I did not detect the problem when testing my packages. Here's the changelog entry, for the morbidly curious: * debian/shell-lib.sh: - fix grievous typo in analyze_path (Closes: #110630) - also made analyze_path() more helpful (thanks, Andrew Suffield) -- G. Branden Robinson|America is at that awkward stage. Debian GNU/Linux |It's too late to work within the [EMAIL PROTECTED] |system, but too early to shoot the http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |bastards. -- Claire Wolfe pgpPhi8nHRxgF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ALERT: XFree86 4.1.0-3 maintainer scripts hosed; please wait for 4.1.0-4
Branden Robinson wrote: * if your /bin/sh is ash, you will likely have this problem Why would this be the case? I thought all Debian systems (well, I don't know about pre-Potato versions) had /bin/sh as a symlink pointing to bash. Wouldn't it sort of be asking for problems to have a non-standard /bin/sh? Craig
Re: ALERT: XFree86 4.1.0-3 maintainer scripts hosed; please wait for 4.1.0-4
on Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 08:23:55PM -0700, Craig Dickson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Branden Robinson wrote: * if your /bin/sh is ash, you will likely have this problem Why would this be the case? I thought all Debian systems (well, I don't know about pre-Potato versions) had /bin/sh as a symlink pointing to bash. Wouldn't it sort of be asking for problems to have a non-standard /bin/sh? ash is a Bourne-compatible shell: $ apt-cache show ash Cheers. -- Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.com http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of Gestalt don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ http://www.kuro5hin.org Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA!http://www.freesklyarov.org Geek for Hirehttp://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html pgp8U4s8Nj3xi.pgp Description: PGP signature
