On Thu, Jun 10, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> I still don't like it very much.. why not chmod'ing it +x instead ? :-)
I looked at a few other scripts in the source tree, they are called with
$(CONFIG_SHELL) , or perl , or awk or even sh .
So my change adds some sort of consistency and makes p
On Sat, 2010-06-05 at 14:00 -0400, Sean MacLennan wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 19:44:37 +0200
> Olaf Hering wrote:
>
> > Maybe.
> > As it stands right now, mkuboot.sh does not run without bash.
> >
> >
> > And:
> > Reality check please.
> > A _development system_ without bash, installed per defa
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 19:44:37 +0200
Olaf Hering wrote:
> Maybe.
> As it stands right now, mkuboot.sh does not run without bash.
>
>
> And:
> Reality check please.
> A _development system_ without bash, installed per default on every
> sane Linux distro, does most likely not exist.
Hmmm, can't ar
On Sat, Jun 05, Sean MacLennan wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 10:10:39 +0200
> Olaf Hering wrote:
>
> > scripts in the kernel source do not have executable permissions if
> > they were created with patch(1) run mkuboot.sh with bash, its tagged
> > as bash script.
>
> Wouldn't it be better to use $
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 10:10:39 +0200
Olaf Hering wrote:
> scripts in the kernel source do not have executable permissions if
> they were created with patch(1) run mkuboot.sh with bash, its tagged
> as bash script.
Wouldn't it be better to use ${SHELL}? Not every system has bash.
Cheers,
Sean
__
scripts in the kernel source do not have executable permissions if they were
created with patch(1)
run mkuboot.sh with bash, its tagged as bash script.
/opt/cross/kernel/linux-2.6.33-cross-host-kernel-source/arch/powerpc/boot/wrapper:
line 273:
/opt/cross/kernel/linux-2.6.33-cross-host-kernel-
