On 5 April 2017 at 21:37, Scott Robison wrote:
> bash supports a --posix switch, which makes it more POSIX-compliant. It
> also tries to mimic POSIX if invoked as sh.
>
And while these methods ensure _compatibility_ with POSIX scripts, they
don't ensure that all executed scripts are POSIX compli
On Apr 5, 2017 7:28 AM, "Bob Friesenhahn"
wrote:
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017, Richard Hipp wrote:
>
> The deeper issue is that I do not have access to a machine that lacks
> bash on which to test the modifications
>
Specify the shell that configure will use like
CONFIG_SHELL=/bin/dash ./configure
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017, Richard Hipp wrote:
On 4/4/17, Jens Alfke wrote:
The issue here seems to be that some scripts in the SQLite source
distribution are _implicitly_ assuming that the default shell is bash, or
else that ‘sh’ is an alias of bash. The best fix, IMHO, would be to make
those scrip
On 05/04/2017 19:23, Richard Hipp wrote:
On 4/4/17, Jens Alfke wrote:
The issue here seems to be that some scripts in the SQLite source
distribution are _implicitly_ assuming that the default shell is bash, or
else that ‘sh’ is an alias of bash. The best fix, IMHO, would be to make
those scrip
On 5 April 2017 at 17:23, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On 4/4/17, Jens Alfke wrote:
> >
> > The issue here seems to be that some scripts in the SQLite source
> > distribution are _implicitly_ assuming that the default shell is bash, or
> > else that ‘sh’ is an alias of bash. The best fix, IMHO, would b
On 4/4/17, Jens Alfke wrote:
>
> The issue here seems to be that some scripts in the SQLite source
> distribution are _implicitly_ assuming that the default shell is bash, or
> else that ‘sh’ is an alias of bash. The best fix, IMHO, would be to make
> those scripts explicitly invoke bash, using a
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Jens Alfke wrote:
>
>> On Apr 4, 2017, at 8:33 PM, Pavel Volkov wrote:
>>
>> bash it's Bourne again shell. Not Bourne shell. Bash is more then POSIX
>> shell.
>
> Yes, that’s what they said. The Bourne shell is ‘sh’.
>
>> And you forgot the FreeBSD in your listing.
> On Apr 4, 2017, at 8:33 PM, Pavel Volkov wrote:
>
> bash it's Bourne again shell. Not Bourne shell. Bash is more then POSIX
> shell.
Yes, that’s what they said. The Bourne shell is ‘sh’.
> And you forgot the FreeBSD in your listing. As example. It does not use bash
> at all.
It doesn’t com
Hello.
bash it's Bourne again shell. Not Bourne shell. Bash is more then POSIX
shell.
And you forgot the FreeBSD in your listing. As example. It does not use
bash at all.
Thank you.
On Apr 4, 2017 4:34 PM, "Gary R. Schmidt" wrote:
> On 04/04/2017 23:20, Richard Hipp wrote:
>
>> On 4/4/17, Pavel
On 04/04/2017 23:20, Richard Hipp wrote:
On 4/4/17, Pavel Volkov wrote:
The "+ =" operator works as you would expect in bash only.
And it causes an error in the Bourne shell, for example.
You have piqued my curiosity. Who is still using Bourne shell instead
of the Bourne-again shell (bash)?
On 4/4/17, Pavel Volkov wrote:
> The "+ =" operator works as you would expect in bash only.
> And it causes an error in the Bourne shell, for example.
You have piqued my curiosity. Who is still using Bourne shell instead
of the Bourne-again shell (bash)? Bash has been with us now for like
three
Hello.
Please, replace the "+ =" operators in the configure.ac file with a
more compatible way of combining strings.
The "+ =" operator works as you would expect in bash only.
And it causes an error in the Bourne shell, for example.
Please, see this patch:
--- configure.ac.orig 2017-04-03 12:16:
12 matches
Mail list logo
