On 4/21/19 7:04 PM, Jeremy Huntwork via lfs-dev wrote:
Hi,
What's the thinking behind the line in section 2.2 that requires
/bin/sh to be a symlink or a hardlink to bash?
Some packages use bash specific constructs, but still initiate it with
/bin/bash.
Why would you not want /bin/sh and /bin/bash to run the same thing?
Don't say speed or size. Unless you have a system from the 1990's it
won't make a noticeable difference.
Also, I'd just like to note that the version-check.sh script there
will report an error even if /bin/sh is a hardlink to bash instead of
a symlink.
Is there a distro that creates hard links for that? Seems wrong to me.
If one is updated, then the other is not without specific action. This
is definitely not common.
-- Bruce
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
