On Wed, 12 Nov 2025 21:39:09 +0100 Daniel Kiper <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 09, 2025 at 04:31:52PM -0600, Glenn Washburn wrote: > > The script assumes that it is run from the root of the source tree, > > which is where it is located. So this should be enforced to prevent > > accidental misuses. > > > > Signed-off-by: Glenn Washburn <[email protected]> > > --- > > linguas.sh | 5 +++++ > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/linguas.sh b/linguas.sh > > index b95ad4f7d9c2..45cdf2ac14ac 100755 > > --- a/linguas.sh > > +++ b/linguas.sh > > @@ -1,5 +1,10 @@ > > #!/bin/sh > > > > +SDIR=$(realpath -e "$0") > > SDIR=$(readlink -f "$0") I'm curious, why do you prefer this? On Debian they both come from the coreutils package. They both resolve symlinks, so functionally I believe they are the same. According to the Debian readlink man page, "Note realpath(1) is the preferred command to use for canonicalization functionality." I find the name a little more intuitive, as we want the real path and the argument might not be a link to be read, which is what readlink suggests to me. Is readlink an older util, and thus more widely supported? > > > +SDIR=${SDIR%/*} > > SDIR=$(dirname "$SDIR") Also, why this is preferable? My guess is that it is more readable. I chose the pure shell approach because its one less exec and external binary dependency. That syntax is supported on both sh and dash, so I expect wide compatibility. Glenn > > Daniel _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
