Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 05:00:01PM -0600, Andrew Elian wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 08:38:59PM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
>>> I'm all in favour of using /bin/bash, but supposedly the
>>> bootscripts are shell-agnostic. So, which shells in the book
>>> don't support brace expansion ?
>> Dash does not support brace expansion, as far as I know. I also have
>> found that ash (with patches from Slackware) also doesn't like them.
>>
>> ae
>>
>
> OK, so this is a bug against the book's build of dash. #3371
> created - I vote for dropping dash, because I've seen no reason to
> use it :)
The bootscripts are supposed to be Bourne shell compatible. I looked and did
find one place in mountvirtfs. Otherwise, I don't see any problems.
I can change (done but not yet committed)
mkdir -p /run/{var,lock,shm}
to
mkdir -p /run/var /run/lock /run/shm
I looked in BLFS, but the only places there are in some of the services that
are
explicitly bash.
Are there other problems?
In one sense I agree with Ken that dash isn't necessary. There are some who
swear that dash is faster, but even if that is true, the problem is in the
script(s), not the shell. The shell is read into memory once and the only time
it would be needed to be loaded again is if the system ran out of memory. The
footprint of bash in memory is 3M. The advocates of dash say it's smaller and
faster, but the time and memory saved is quite negligible in anything faster
than a 66MHz 386.
On my system, the boot log shows the first bootscript at 16:36:04 and the last
at 16:36:33. Of that time, it spent 20 seconds cleaning /tmp (which I forgot
to
turn off in rc.site). Another 6 seconds is to run udev which is discovering
devices. All the rest run in a total of 3 seconds.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
