Chris Staub wrote: > On 11/05/2009 04:24 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> Chris Staub wrote: >>> On 11/05/2009 03:54 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >>>> First mistake. Change the symlink >>>> >>> No need for that...long as /bin/bash is specified for the LFS user. >> I'm not sure about that Chris. That means that no script will ever >> invoke sh. IIRC, glibc is especailly bad about having bashisms in sh >> scripts. >> > I have built LFS using /bin/sh -> dash (and /usr/bin/awk -> mawk) > recently with no problems. I know Glibc has had problems before with > using bashisms but not specifying Bash, but that has been fixed. Don't > really know what you mean by "no script will ever invoke sh".
Interesting. That is a recent change then because it has caused problems in the past. I still think that bash/awk are known to be good. Others may cause problems or may work. It may even depend on the package versions. Sometimes scripts will invoke subscripts with '/bin/sh script'. Whether that will work with dash depends on the script. We know the book's instructions work with bash. I really don't want to get into the business of checking the book's instructions with multiple versions of host tools. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
