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@...>
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
Following this, I started a short discussion on the forums about this.
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.
Also vaguely related:
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@...>
Home page: http://hem.fyristorg.com/bkhl/
Elektrubadur demo: http://hem.fyristorg.com/bkhl/elektrubadur/
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.