Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > Yes, the difference in complexity I was referring to was not really how > complex an LFS system could become, but rather between our typically > sparse function libraries/scripts and that of a satisfy-everyone distro. > Apparently in Ubuntu, the switch to dash as sh for the bootscripts made > a noticeable difference.
Maybe the problem wasn't in the shell, but in the scripts. :) > In any case, moving to dash as the shell for bootscripts on my system > revealed a few instances of non-portable code, so that was useful. I now > have scripts that work the same with dash, bash and busybox. If you know of any issues it the current scripts, let me know. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
