glibc @BASH@ thing
Hi. There is some simple solution to make ldd.bash.in work with dash, and other shells. Change this line: BEGIN if set -o pipefail 2> /dev/null; then END to these two lines: BEGIN if set -o | grep pipefail 1> /dev/null 2> /dev/null; then set -o pipefail 2> /dev/null END and that's all. With this fix it works correctly and this sed thing if LFS book isn't needed. You could ask why this solution is better than fix? It is, because it enables you not to use bash for ldd. I donno if glibc works without bash, but i saw that this was the only thing which needed changing in glibc. So i suppose now you can use dash instead of bash for default shell, if you want. LFS should be flexible right? So little patch for glibc would be better than this sed script. Mateusz Grotek -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc @BASH@ thing
Bruce Dubbs pisze: > Mateusz Grotek wrote: > >> Hi. There is some simple solution to make ldd.bash.in work with dash, >> and other shells. >> Change this line: >> BEGIN >> if set -o pipefail 2> /dev/null; then >> END >> to these two lines: >> BEGIN >> if set -o | grep pipefail 1> /dev/null 2> /dev/null; then >> set -o pipefail 2> /dev/null >> END >> and that's all. With this fix it works correctly and this sed thing if >> LFS book isn't needed. You could ask why this solution is better than fix? >> It is, because it enables you not to use bash for ldd. I donno if glibc >> works without bash, but i saw that this was the only thing which needed >> changing in glibc. So i suppose now you can use dash instead of bash for >> default shell, if you want. LFS should be flexible right? >> So little patch for glibc would be better than this sed script. >> Mateusz Grotek >> > > This is better asked on lfs-support. > > To answer your question: >sudo ln -sf bash /bin/sh > >-- Bruce > > No. It's not support question. It's suggestion for a LFS book. While installing glibc you have to change @BASH@ to /bin/bash. But this is more general solution. Just make a patch for glibc. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: glibc @BASH@ thing
Gilles Espinasse pisze: > Selon Mateusz Grotek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > >> Bruce Dubbs pisze: >> >>> Mateusz Grotek wrote: >>> >>> > ... > >>>> and that's all. With this fix it works correctly and this sed thing if >>>> LFS book isn't needed. You could ask why this solution is better than fix? >>>> It is, because it enables you not to use bash for ldd. I donno if glibc >>>> works without bash, but i saw that this was the only thing which needed >>>> changing in glibc. So i suppose now you can use dash instead of bash for >>>> default shell, if you want. LFS should be flexible right? >>>> So little patch for glibc would be better than this sed script. >>>> Mateusz Grotek >>>> >>>> >>> This is better asked on lfs-support. >>> >>> To answer your question: >>>sudo ln -sf bash /bin/sh >>> >>>-- Bruce >>> >>> >>> >> No. It's not support question. It's suggestion for a LFS book. While >> installing glibc you have to change @BASH@ to /bin/bash. But this is >> more general solution. Just make a patch for glibc. >> -- >> > Patching is costly to maintain and more subject to breakage. > > Another solution for glibc than the sed is to use CONFIG_SHELL=/bin/bash > It should achieve the same result than the sed. > > Gilles > Yes. I understand that. So i'm trying to send this patch to libc-alpha too. I donno if glibc utilities would work with dash (without bash installed). But if it is possible, we could give users choice which shell they like. People from ubuntu made dash default shell, so why we couldn't do it? Is it fair to force users to have bash installed? With BLFS it could be, because many packages depend on it in their scripts. But LFS should be more basic i suppose. you don't have to build any package from BLFS if you don't want to. But you MUST to build all packages from LFS if you want your system. So let's give the users choice. I donno if other packages from LFS depends on bash installed. If there are some, this issue doesn't matter. Do you know if there are any? -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
