[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ed10ee420804300242k67350a3s50a1d4fb8813af75@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:42:33 -0700
From: "SL Baur" <steve@...acs.org>
To: "Willy Tarreau" <w@....eu>
Cc: "Alexey Dobriyan" <adobriyan@...il.com>,
"Mark Rustad" <mrustad@...il.com>,
"Sam Ravnborg" <sam@...nborg.org>,
"Timur Tabi" <timur@...escale.com>,
"Roland Kuhn" <rkuhn@....physik.tu-muenchen.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Why use /bin/sh in kernel build system?
On 4/29/08, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 03:27:02PM -0500, Mark Rustad wrote:
> > > Life is too short to keep having to fight silliness like this and I
> > > can't see a valid reason why a system building a Linux kernel, or for that
> > > matter gcc, should not have the bash shell installed on it.
> Hint: not every joe user may install bash into /bin... That's why we
> see some scripts begin with "/usr/bin/env bash" as there are less
> systems without env in /usr/bin than systems without bash in /bin (or
> at all).
/bin/sh standard behaviour is defined. We follow standards not written or
dictated by us. I'm proud of that.
-sb
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists