1 |
On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 10:13 +0000, Roy Marples wrote: |
2 |
> While I still have access to the u@g.o email, I'll respond here. |
3 |
> |
4 |
> |
5 |
> On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 10:22 +0100, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: |
6 |
> > On Sat, 2007-11-03 at 00:47 +0000, Roy Marples wrote: |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > As it seems too few people really accept your suggestion, I feel it's |
9 |
> > time for me to chime in too, although I don't know what exactly POSIX-sh |
10 |
> > standard defines. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> > Agreed, but (speaking for alt/prefix): |
13 |
> > |
14 |
> > Alt/prefix is designed to (mainly) work without superuser access on the |
15 |
> > target machine, which may also be Solaris, AIX, HP-UX and the like. |
16 |
> > /bin/sh on such a machine is not POSIX-shell, but old bourne-shell |
17 |
> > (unfortunately with bugs often). |
18 |
> > And it is _impossible_ to have sysadmins to get /bin/sh a POSIX-Shell |
19 |
> > nor to have that bugs fixed. |
20 |
> > |
21 |
> > But yes, on most machines there is /bin/ksh, which IMHO is POSIX |
22 |
> > compliant (maybe also with non-fixable bugs). |
23 |
> > |
24 |
> > Although I do not know yet for which _installed_ scripts it'd be really |
25 |
> > useful to have them non-bash in alt/prefix, I appreciate the discussion. |
26 |
> > |
27 |
> > To see benefits for alt/prefix too, it _might_ require that discussion |
28 |
> > going from requiring /bin/sh being POSIX-sh towards being |
29 |
> > bourne-shell... |
30 |
> |
31 |
> Actually you missed the mark completely. |
32 |
> Nothing in the tree itself specifies what shell to use - instead it's |
33 |
> the package manager. So the PM on Gentoo/Linux/FreeBSD *could* |
34 |
> be /bin/sh and on the systems where /bin/sh is not possible to change to |
35 |
> a POSIX compliant shell then it can still use /bin/bash or wherever it's |
36 |
> installed. |
37 |
|
38 |
So "have the installed scripts to not require bash" is another topic ? |
39 |
|
40 |
Ok then: |
41 |
Given that we want to have the tree "more generic unix-able": |
42 |
What is the benefit from having the tree being POSIX- but not |
43 |
bourne-shell compatible, so one still needs bash on Solaris/AIX/HP-UX ? |
44 |
Because I'd say those three are the biggest substitutes for "unix", |
45 |
while I'd call *BSD and Linux just "unix derivates" (although with |
46 |
enhancements)... |
47 |
|
48 |
> |
49 |
> This also applies to the userland tools. If the ebuild or eclass *has* |
50 |
> to use the GNU variants then it should either adjust $PATH so that it |
51 |
> finds them first, or it prefixes them all with g, like it does on |
52 |
> Gentoo/FreeBSD. |
53 |
> |
54 |
> None of this is technically challenging in itself, it's just that the |
55 |
> key people who would have to do the work to make this possible have |
56 |
> already given a flat out no. |
57 |
|
58 |
In the early prefix days I had some portage enhancement, providing a |
59 |
wrapper-function around all coreutils/findutils/diffutils/grep/others, |
60 |
trying to find a GNU implementation for them. And if not found, try to |
61 |
map some args to the native ones ("xargs -r" fex - although didn't work |
62 |
as shell-function). |
63 |
But then we decided to always provide USERLAND=GNU in prefix and this |
64 |
portage patch was thrown away. |
65 |
|
66 |
> |
67 |
> > > > It seems to me that you actually mean "more FreeBSD-able" or something, |
68 |
> > > > which is a high price to pay for a relatively small part of Gentoo as a |
69 |
> > > > whole. |
70 |
> > > |
71 |
> > > More embeddable. |
72 |
> > > More BSDable. |
73 |
> > > More Linuxable - bash isn't the only linux shell, there are plently of |
74 |
> > > others. |
75 |
> > |
76 |
> > More (generic) unix-able. |
77 |
> |
78 |
> Exactly so :) |
79 |
|
80 |
Not really as long as not being bourne shell compatible like autoconf's |
81 |
configure. I won't trust to have a POSIX shell like /bin/ksh everywhere, |
82 |
but /bin/sh only, which usually is just a bourne shell on "unix". |
83 |
|
84 |
/haubi/ |
85 |
-- |
86 |
Michael Haubenwallner |
87 |
Gentoo on a different level |
88 |
|
89 |
-- |
90 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |