[gentoo-dev] Fw: [gentoo-user] Gentoo's trouble with /bin/sh

[gentoo-dev] Fw: [gentoo-user] Gentoo's trouble with /bin/sh

[Spider]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2454 bytes --]

This erroneously appeared in -user and was appropiately ignored ;-)

Can somone with a bit more time than I have take a look?

//Spider



begin  forwarded message:

Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 19:14:05 +0200
From: Björn Lindström <bkhl@privat.utfors.se>
To: gentoo-user@gentoo.org
Subject: [gentoo-user] Gentoo's trouble with /bin/sh


A while ago, after emerging the app-shells/ash .ebuild (still unstable),
I noticed that some essential bash-scripts in Gentoo, including qpkg,
are erroneously marked as sh-scripts. Also, /etc/profile includes
bash-specific settings with broken tests to see if the shell really is
bash.

Following this, I started a short discussion on the forums about this.
(http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=46245)

In short, I suggested that Gentoo adopt the Debian /bin/sh-policy,
quoted in the forum.

I was given the quite obvious suggestion to file bug reports for these
problems, since it is in all cases really easy to fix, without
disadvantages for anyone.

Here are my reports.

http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18914
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18915
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18918
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19782

Also vaguely related:

http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18922

As you can see from the responses, almost none of these errors has been
fixed, the responsible developers at best seems to have no idea that
bash is not bourne shell, at worst start refering to the FHS (sic),
obviously without knowing what they are talking about.

Apart from the value of keeping Gentoo as POSIX compliant, this is bad
because a lot of performance-conscious Gentoo-users will probably want
to link /bin/sh to ash, saving precious memory and CPU-time, when that
shell interpreter gets marked stable in portage.

Also, I might add that I have /bin/sh linked to /bin/ash for a couple of
months now with no problems, after doing the fixes in the mentioned bug
reports. So I can safely urge you that are so inclined to try it out.

-- 
Björn Lindström <bkhl@privat.utfors.se>
Home page: http://hem.fyristorg.com/bkhl/
Blog: http://bkhl.livejournal.com/
Elektrubadur demo: http://hem.fyristorg.com/bkhl/elektrubadur/


--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list



-- 
begin  .signature
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Fw: [gentoo-user] Gentoo's trouble with /bin/sh

[Grant Goodyear]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1320 bytes --]

Many of these bugs have already been fixed.  

Reading through bug 18918, Azarah's comments seem perfectly reasonable
to me, so I think the author of that message was a bit harsh. 
Lindstrom's last comment on that bug does seem fairly clear, but I'm
wondering if his proposed fix will break /etc/profile for the zsh (and
any other fancy *sh that might exist that I don't know anything about)? 
I do agree that we should try to prevent our /etc/profile from breaking
people's prompts, but I don't want people to lose the distinctive Gentoo
eye-candy, either.

Anybody thoughts? 

-g2boojum-

On Wed, 2003-04-23 at 23:19, Spider wrote:
> This erroneously appeared in -user and was appropiately ignored ;-)
> 
> Can somone with a bit more time than I have take a look?

> begin  forwarded message:
> 
> Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 19:14:05 +0200
> From: Björn Lindström <bkhl@privat.utfors.se>
> To: gentoo-user@gentoo.org
> Subject: [gentoo-user] Gentoo's trouble with /bin/sh

> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18914
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18915
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18918
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19782
> 
> Also vaguely related:
> 
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18922
> 

-- 
Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@gentoo.org>

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Fw: [gentoo-user] Gentoo's trouble with /bin/sh

[Mark Gordon]

On 24 Apr 2003 12:48:20 -0400
Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Many of these bugs have already been fixed.  
> 
> Reading through bug 18918, Azarah's comments seem perfectly reasonable
> to me, so I think the author of that message was a bit harsh. 
> Lindstrom's last comment on that bug does seem fairly clear, but I'm
> wondering if his proposed fix will break /etc/profile for the zsh (and
> any other fancy *sh that might exist that I don't know anything
> about)? I do agree that we should try to prevent our /etc/profile from
> breaking people's prompts, but I don't want people to lose the
> distinctive Gentoo eye-candy, either.

<snip>

> > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18918

I hit the issue of bash being a superset of sh myself a couple of months
ago when writing scripts to run on SCO, AIX & Linux.

I would suggest that the either one has to have separate tests for bash
& and other /bin/sh or /etc/profile should stick to a POSIX compliant
value and as was suggested /etc/bashrc can set something fancier.

If someone can suggest which is the most compliant, least extended sh
implementation I would be happy to have that installed on one of my
boxes for testing.
-- 
Mark Gordon
Paid to be a Geek & a Senior Software Developer
Currently looking for a new job commutable from Slough, Berks, U.K.
Although my email address says spamtrap, it is real and I read it.

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo's trouble with /bin/sh

[Björn Lindström]

Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@gentoo.org> [20030424 18:48]:
> Reading through bug 18918, Azarah's comments seem perfectly reasonable
> to me, so I think the author of that message was a bit harsh.

Reading them through myself, I also think I might have been a bit harsh.
I apologize if I have offended anyone.

> Lindström's last comment on that bug does seem fairly clear, but I'm
> wondering if his proposed fix will break /etc/profile for the zsh (and
> any other fancy *sh that might exist that I don't know anything
> about)?

Being a zsh-head myself, I can answer that one. zsh doesn't even take a
look at /etc/profile, unless you call it as as /bin/sh or /bin/ksh, in
which case you are probably not running it interactively, anyway.

As for other fancy shells, you can be pretty sure they wont like those
bash-prompt-strings either, and they certainly wont have $BASH set.  On
the whole, they should be happy about it, too.

-- 
Björn Lindström <bkhl@privat.utfors.se>
Home page: http://hem.fyristorg.com/bkhl/
Blog: http://bkhl.livejournal.com/
Elektrubadur demo: http://hem.fyristorg.com/bkhl/elektrubadur/


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list