Re: NAK (bashizm in the /bin/sh script): [PATCH v3] doc/oops-tracing: add Code: decode info

[DervishD <lkml@dervishd.net>]

    Hi Randy :)

 * Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com> dixit:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 17:33:59 +0200 DervishD wrote:
> >  * Jan-Benedict Glaw <jbglaw@lug-owl.de> dixit:
> > > On Tue, 2007-06-26 12:16:39 +0200, DervishD <lkml@dervishd.net> wrote:
> > > >     Given that it happens too with "ldd", it really *is* that hard. I
> > > > don't know why still people think that /bin/sh is always /bin/bash. If
> > > > they want/need bash, that's ok to me, I will have it installed for such
> > > > tasks, but they should call it "#!/bin/bash".
> > > 
> > > ...or "#!/usr/bin/env bash" for what it's worth...  The same for plain
> > > `sh'.
> > 
> >     The "env" solution is a bit of a problem, too. Not always "env" is
> > installed in /usr/bin, but in /bin, so it is available even if /usr is
> > not still mounted. But /bin/sh is pretty standard (as it should be
> > /bin/bash, anyway), and it's only two chars shorter than the correct
> > "/bin/bash". No idea why it is not fixed.
> 
> because nobody sent a patch yet?
> 
> but I'll get around tuit.

    Sorry, I wasn't speaking about your patch, I was talking about the
"ldd" issue (and others like that). When I was preparing the patch for
"ldd" I saw in a mailing list archive the answer given to somebody that
tried exactly the same and I lost all interest in patching "ldd".

    Raúl Núñez de Arenas Coronado

-- 
Linux Registered User 88736 | http://www.dervishd.net
It's my PC and I'll cry if I want to... RAmen!