On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 8:17 PM Bruce Dubbs via lfs-dev <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. >
Do you mean they call '/bin/sh' for scripts with bash specific functionality? If so, which packages? Also, if that's the case, I would consider that a bug in the package. Anything that calls '/bin/sh' should only expect to get POSIX specified functionality. > 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. I wasn't asking because of any personal preference. I just noticed that out of the box Ubuntu fails this test because /bin/sh is a symlink to /bin/dash, and I was wondering if this is truly a hard requirement. > > 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. I don't know of any distro that does it like that. But in trying to satisfy the stated requirements, I hard-linked /bin/sh to /bin/bash and noticed that the version-check.sh still produced an error. JH -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
