On 22/04/2019 05:55, Jeremy Huntwork via lfs-dev wrote: > On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 8:37 PM Bruce Dubbs <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 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. > > Sorry, I don't understand how it's a hard requirement. Especially > since you also said later "it's just an advisory". I'm not intending > to argue, I'd just like to understand. > > Anyway, here's a version of that script which will actually exit with > an error status if any requirements aren't met: > https://gist.github.com/jhuntwork/e57571e3cbe78d970c6edeee5e42d36b I > tried to make it easy to read and amend. Feel free to use it if you > like, or ignore it if you don't.
I like the style :) Looks like yacc is missing from the list of values for "progname", unless it is supposed to be tested elsewhere (but I do not see it). If it is just missing, I wonder whether it is enough to test that yacc has a version higher than the minimal bison version. Actually, is there a package now trying to use yacc? Pierre -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
