On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 10:55 AM, <a...@xfsmail.com> wrote: > On 2013-11-29 18:26, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > > alex@xfsmail.comwrote: > > My real point is this one. Bash-3.2 (/bin/sh should be a symbolic or hard > link to bash) I think maybe it means /bin/sh should be /bin/bash ( /bin/sh > -> /bin/bash) but mine is ( /bin/sh -> /usr/bin/bash ). ( /bin/sh -> > /bin/bash ) = ( /bin/sh -> /usr/bin/bash ) are they same? > > The normal place for bash is /bin because in the case of a separate /usr > partition it will not be available. A separate /usr partition is very > rare because disk drives are quite large and is not needed. > > What you have should work fine with regards to bash. > > -- Bruce > > Sorry I not really understand that Bruce, alright this is more clear. > > > The requirement is ( /bin/bash ) but I have ( /usr/bin/bash ). > Can I use ( /usr/bin/bash ) ? > or I should change it to ( /bin/bash ) ? >
/usr/bin/bash should be ok as long as /bin/sh points to it > > I still get no clue on search engines, maybe there is command to change it > ? Any help please! > > # ALEX # > > > -- > http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support > FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html > Unsubscribe: See the above information page > >
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
