Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Mark Gordon <mark.gt@×××××××××××××××.uk>
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Fw: [gentoo-user] Gentoo's trouble with /bin/sh
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 00:05:58
Message-Id: 20030425010552.4a1c9a99.mark.gt@flash-gordon.me.uk
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Fw: [gentoo-user] Gentoo's trouble with /bin/sh by Grant Goodyear
1 On 24 Apr 2003 12:48:20 -0400
2 Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@g.o> wrote:
3
4 > Many of these bugs have already been fixed.
5 >
6 > Reading through bug 18918, Azarah's comments seem perfectly reasonable
7 > to me, so I think the author of that message was a bit harsh.
8 > Lindstrom's last comment on that bug does seem fairly clear, but I'm
9 > wondering if his proposed fix will break /etc/profile for the zsh (and
10 > any other fancy *sh that might exist that I don't know anything
11 > about)? I do agree that we should try to prevent our /etc/profile from
12 > breaking people's prompts, but I don't want people to lose the
13 > distinctive Gentoo eye-candy, either.
14
15 <snip>
16
17 > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18918
18
19 I hit the issue of bash being a superset of sh myself a couple of months
20 ago when writing scripts to run on SCO, AIX & Linux.
21
22 I would suggest that the either one has to have separate tests for bash
23 & and other /bin/sh or /etc/profile should stick to a POSIX compliant
24 value and as was suggested /etc/bashrc can set something fancier.
25
26 If someone can suggest which is the most compliant, least extended sh
27 implementation I would be happy to have that installed on one of my
28 boxes for testing.
29 --
30 Mark Gordon
31 Paid to be a Geek & a Senior Software Developer
32 Currently looking for a new job commutable from Slough, Berks, U.K.
33 Although my email address says spamtrap, it is real and I read it.
34
35 --
36 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list