On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 05:59:52PM -0400, James Carlson wrote:
> Ceri Davies writes:
> > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 04:45:45PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 10:23:15PM +0100, Ceri Davies wrote:
> > > > So I ask again, why doesn't SMF support using anything other than
> > > > /bin/sh?
> > > > It's a bug, right?
> > >
> > > SMF does, lsvcrun doesn't.
> >
> > I'm sure there's a difference, but in the context of rc scripts aren't
> > they the same thing?
> >
> > Either way, even given the explanation that James provided for his
> > choice of /sbin/sh, the fact remains that he isn't going to get it in an
> > rc script and I just want to make sure that he's aware of that.
>
> The reason is for consistency; /sbin/sh is the traditional language of
> those scripts. How it works internally is really not of much
> consequence -- especially as the whole point to the thread is that #!
> doesn't do anything here!
I just can't believe you can reconcile the current situation being ok
with:
"/bin is just a symlink to /usr/bin, and if your script must run before
/usr is mount (or must clean up after it has unmounted), then using
/bin/sh is a mistake."
Either you believe that these scripts should be run with /sbin/sh and
not /bin/sh, or you don't.
Ceri
--
That must be wonderful! I don't understand it at all.
-- Moliere
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/smf-discuss/attachments/20080617/dc3794b2/attachment.bin>
