On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 3:46 AM Pierre Labastie via lfs-dev <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
Thanks. Yep, mistake. I meant to add it to the progname list, thanks. JH -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
