On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 11:17:49AM +0200, Xavier Chantry wrote: > On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Pierre Schmitz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I would say make sure that core packages are fine with /bin/sh being dash > > and then move it to testing. This should speed up things. For the install > > scripts: why can't pacman just call /bin/bash? I mean makpekg and the > > PKGBUILDS need bash anyway. > > > > I think that the two pending patches from Jonathan Conder on my branch > http://code.toofishes.net/cgit/xavier/pacman.git/log/?h=working > would make this cleaner and easier to do. > 1) switch from popen to execl : popen implicitely calls /bin/sh, so > when we had /bin/sh=dash and wants bash, it would call /bin/dash then > /bin/bash. But execl gives us more control. > 2) ldconfig is now called directly so if we do the change /bin/sh -> > /bin/bash, it only affects scriptlet executions. > > But I am pretty sure we talked about this before, maybe there was a > bug report, and some people suggested to make the shell path > configurable. > Thinking about it now, I would be fine with just calling /bin/bash > directly. If we consider pacman project as a whole, it's pretty much > tied to bash anyway. >
+1 from someone who is using pacman in a FreeBSD environment. Where "/bin/sh" is linked to neither bash nor dash. bash is used in both makepkg and repo-add. It's not a platform-dependent terrible dependency. And for recovery purposes, It can optionally be built statically. The static option is actually supported as a configure flag.
