On Sat, 7 May 2005, Robert Lunnon wrote:
On Sat, 7 May 2005 08:52 pm, Francois Gouget wrote:
On Sat, 7 May 2005, Robert Lunnon wrote: [...]
# diff -u wineshelllink.old wineshelllink --- wineshelllink.old mer mai 4 11:47:30 2005 +++ wineshelllink mer mai 4 11:50:03 2005 @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -#!/bin/sh +#!/bin/bash
[...]
Wrong? Well actually, bash is wrong, it doesn't properly emulate Bourne shell behaviour when called as sh, a constant source of irritation for Solaris users I assure you.
It irritates *BSD users too.
[...]
Let's agree the solution is not necessarily *Wrong*, It does in fact work, so it can't be wrong.
It is wrong because Wine should not depend on bash.
The script as written is bash feature bound,
This is wrong and must be fixed, not 'swept under the carpet'.
and therefore should be executed by bash. What you really mean is that Laurent didn't fix the problem the way you wanted it to be fixed.
This is true too but I think most Wine developers will agree with me that Wine should not depend on bash which means the above is not 'the right fix(tm)' which makes it 'the wrong fix'.
BTW I have no objection to making wine dependent on bash,
I have a strong objection as I'm sure many other developers do.
bash is available for all platforms and is probably more regular than bourne shell across platforms, though I think perhaps perhaps ksh might be a safer standard shell choice
Putting '/bin/bash' is just as wrong as putting '/bin/ksh'. If you did the latter that script would fail to run on 90% of Linux systems. If you did the former it would certainly fail to run on a good number of *BSD systems (owned by persons alergic to bash) and maybe some Linux systems too.
[...]
Maybe there are other thoughts out there on which interpreter would be best for wine's purposes.
'/bin/sh' is the right interpreter, there's simply no doubt about it.
Perhaps Laurent might be willing to take a look at the bash dependencies, if not I'll add it to my patch list to be maintained outside the wine project until I get around to looking at it.
Yes, it seems Laurent is in a pretty good position to fix this script since his '/bin/sh' does not point to bash.