On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 11:34:32PM +1000, Brendan O'Dea wrote:
> bash is an essential package and therefore must (§2.3.7) supply all core
> functionality when unconfigured--which precludes the use of
> update-alternatives (run when configuring the package) if you consider
> /bin/sh as being part o
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 01:49:52PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 08:15:58AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>> Yep. This a more serious problem. I don't think its unsolvable, though;
>> how does the current /bin/sh link get set up? I'd think bash postinst
>> could change it
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 08:15:58AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-09-20 at 05:28, Julian Gilbey wrote:
>
> >
> > Technical problems here. Among other things, you'd have symlinks
> > /bin/sh -> /etc/alternatives/sh -> /bin/
> > What happens if /etc is corrupted or not mounted or
On Fri, 2002-09-20 at 05:28, Julian Gilbey wrote:
>
> Technical problems here. Among other things, you'd have symlinks
> /bin/sh -> /etc/alternatives/sh -> /bin/
> What happens if /etc is corrupted or not mounted or there are other
> problems?
Nothing worse than what happens if you put /etc on
On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 05:02:24PM -0600, Georg Lehner wrote:
> It is my opinion, that all sh-scripts involved in the standard system
> should be posix-sh compatible
Correct; if you find one which isn't, please file a bug against the
package.
> _and_ that the selection of the /bin/sh
> symlink s
On 19 Sep 2002 17:02:24 -0600
Georg Lehner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is my opinion, that all sh-scripts involved in the standard system
> should be posix-sh compatible _and_ that the selection of the /bin/sh
> symlink should be realized by the alternative-mecanism instead of
> diverting.
I
Indeed!
El jue, 19-09-2002 a las 10:28, Clint Adams escribió:
> > /bin/sh is a symlink to /bin/bash. Shouldn't it be an alternative so I
> > can make ash or any other compliant, but smaller shall the default (and
> > thus save memory and CPU requirements)?!
[...stripped explanation about what is
> /bin/sh is a symlink to /bin/bash. Shouldn't it be an alternative so I
> can make ash or any other compliant, but smaller shall the default (and
> thus save memory and CPU requirements)?!
The problem is that various people like to claim that policy is either
irrelevant or that it means somethin
On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 09:50:16AM -0600, Georg Lehner wrote:
> BTW:
>
> /bin/sh is a symlink to /bin/bash. Shouldn't it be an alternative so I
> can make ash or any other compliant, but smaller shall the default (and
> thus save memory and CPU requirements)?!
/usr/share/doc/bash/README.Debian.g
BTW:
El jue, 19-09-2002 a las 01:28, Clint Adams escribió:
...
> You may wish to restrict your script to POSIX features when possible
> so that it may use `/bin/sh' as its interpreter. If your script works
> with `ash', it's probably POSIX compliant, but if you are in doubt,
>
Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.5.7.0
> Severity: normal
>
> In 11.4:
>
> You may wish to restrict your script to POSIX features when possible
> so that it may use `/bin/sh' as its interpreter. If your script works
> with `ash', it's proba
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.7.0
Severity: normal
In 11.4:
You may wish to restrict your script to POSIX features when possible
so that it may use `/bin/sh' as its interpreter. If your script works
with `ash', it's probably POSIX compliant, but if you are in doubt,
use
12 matches
Mail list logo
