[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070626102414.GU27862@lug-owl.de>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:24:15 +0200
From: Jan-Benedict Glaw <jbglaw@...-owl.de>
To: Matthieu CASTET <castet.matthieu@...e.fr>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: NAK (bashizm in the /bin/sh script): [PATCH v3] doc/oops-tracing: add Code: decode info
On Tue, 2007-06-26 12:16:39 +0200, DervishD <lkml@...vishd.net> wrote:
> * Matthieu CASTET <castet.matthieu@...e.fr> dixit:
> > On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 10:43:03 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >
> > > OTOH, you also didn't supply a patch. If you do this, I'll be glad to
> > > consider it. If I can read it, that is.
> >
> > "s|/bin/sh|/bin/bash" is so hard to do ?
>
> 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'.
MfG, JBG
--
Jan-Benedict Glaw jbglaw@...-owl.de +49-172-7608481
Signature of: http://perl.plover.com/Questions.html
the second :
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (190 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists