On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 at 20:07, Rob Landley <[email protected]> wrote: > > The 5th is expecting /usr/bin/env to be at an absolute > path but not /bin/bash, which... how is one more trustworthy than the other?
Yep, I don't have a very convincing answer for why /usr/bin/env is better than /bin/bash, other than in practice it seems all relevant systems have /usr/bin/env, and not all have /bin/bash. I'm not sure of a great way to handle this, other than renaming files to .sh.in and having a build step that replaces some sort of @BASH@ sentinel with #!/bin/bash or #!/usr/local/bin/bash as appropriate. > Other than that, Ed says: > > > With this change I can build these posix toys: > > ... > > Which sounds a bit like where MacOS left off. I think I need some sort of > "make > macos_defconfig" and "make freebsd_defconfig" targets pulling in relevant > default configurations. (Which should be separate files rather than trying to > annotate every command with which targets can build it; that way lies madness, > as gentoo discovered)... Yeah, that sounds good to me - I'm happy to put together a default config file for FreeBSD (.config.FreeBSD?), and then update it along with other future changes that improve FreeBSD support. In addition to the #!/bin/bash workaround I have another local change now, in order to get tests to start running: in scripts/single.sh and scripts/test.sh I changed 'make' to 'gmake' and 'sed' to 'gsed' to get the GNU versions. > but I've _almost_ got working BSD versions on more than one occasion. (With > help > from Randi Harper and Kirk McKusick over the years, and it still didn't > _quite_ > work, but I can try again...) I'm happy to help get your VM set up as well - and the FreeBSD project makes prebuilt VM images available if you like. _______________________________________________ Toybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
