On 4/21/19 7:28 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
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?
Yes, I mis-typed that.
If so, which packages?
IIRC, it was either glibc or gcc. I't been a ling time.
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.
Yeah, I can agree with that.
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.
Yes and yes.
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.
I guess the version check is actually advisory in nature like everything
else in LFS. If you know what you are doing, then you can change
anything you want.
As Ken says, if you do that and it breaks, then you get to keep the pieces.
-- Bruce
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
