:: Re: [DNG] vdev packaging effort ( w…
Top Page
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Author: Rainer Weikusat
Date:  
To: Didier Kryn
CC: dng
Subject: Re: [DNG] vdev packaging effort ( was: state of what's working for modern desktop usage)
Didier Kryn <kryn@???> writes:

> Le 11/02/2016 17:04, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
>> Didier Kryn <kryn@???> writes:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> It should be the name of a shell capable of running Bourne/ standard
>>>> shell scripts. But this may not work if the /bin/dash in the original
>>>> script was there for a reason, ie, it was using dash features.
>>>>
>>>      As I already wrote, vdev was working well with busybox's ash.,
>>> replacing 'dash' with 'sh' in the shebang.

>>>
>>>      If the question is why Jude replaced /bin/sh with /bin/dash in the
>>> middle of the development, I think it was to make sure to not invoke
>>> bash. But (sorry for the repetition) I used to modify the shebang
>>> everytime I tested a new version, and there was never any issue with
>>> the shell.
>> There is no question here. *If* the script in question uses dash
>> spuriously, ie, it doesn't use features specific to dash but is actually
>> a Bourne shell script, replacing /bin/dash with /bin/sh should be
>> fine. If not, stuff is going to break sooner or later, either because
>> /bin/sh isn't really dash (eg, someone might use bash for that) or
>> because of difference between the busybox and Debian (d)ash forks.

>>
>
>     There shouldn't be any "feature specific to dash", by
> construction.


There are, "by construction". Eg, dash supports local, the POSIX /bin/sh
doesn't.