On Wednesday 19 May 2010 22:34:09 Peter Tyser wrote: > <snip> > > > > Maybe some other shells happen to allow read without arguments, but its > > > a crapshoot as its not a standard. > > > > Which is why you say #!/bin/bash and then teach busybox's shells to > > understand the name "bash". The name is a promise of an API beyond > > Posix. > > That's fine by me, adding optional support for bashisms to busybox's > shells seems like a good idea. However, how does that relate to the > #!/bin/bash vs #!/bin/sh debate in build scripts we're having (or > hopefully had?)? I'd guess the vast majority of developers don't use > busybox's shell when building busybox itself.
I do. If the development environment you're creating isn't capable of self- hosting, it's not finished. I also use the distro's host environment, and I have yet to find a distro whose repo contains gcc but not bash. In fact, I have yet to find a distro that doesn't install bash by default. (Given that Ubuntu recently turned /usr/bin/gcc into a perl script, I wouldn't put any crazy stupid thing past them, but even they haven't done so yet.) > Thus we are still left > with the original debate of scripts using "bash+bashisms" or "sh > +nobashisms". Even crazy Ubuntu installs #!/bin/bash by default. There has never been any plan on the part of Ubuntu to change this. Linux has had bash installed by default since before it was called Linux. > Or am I missing something? I thought we had reached the > consensus that we should strive to remove bashisms from the build > scripts. Is this still the case? Given that I've argued consistently against that position during this entire discussion, I find your idea of "consensus" somewhat strange. Rob -- Latency is more important than throughput. It's that simple. - Linus Torvalds _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
