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
This is wrong. Some users may not have bash installed and the script should still work on their systems. So the fix is not to make the script fail to run on any system which does not have bash but to modify it so it works with any standard Bourne shell, including the Solaris one.
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
This is wrong. Some users may not have bash installed and the script should still work on their systems. So the fix is not to make the script fail to run on any system which does not have bash but to modify it so it works with any standard Bourne shell, including the Solaris one.
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. So the "Correct" fix is to fix bash, but then doing that will break half of linux. Now you see why I choose Solaris... But this is besides the point.
Let's agree the solution is not necessarily *Wrong*, It does in fact work, so it can't be wrong. The script as written is bash feature bound, 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.
BTW I have no objection to making wine dependent on bash, 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 and it's more likely to be closer than /bin/sh to being able to parse bash dependent scripts properly.
Maybe there are other thoughts out there on which interpreter would be best for wine's purposes.
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.
Bob
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.
Francois Gouget wrote:
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'.
Of course The Microsoft Fix(tm) would be to say "ahh to hell with it. Lets make our own proprietary shell and require that everyone using our product use that" :-D *ducks and runs for cover* I feel the heat of your flames already!
Dustin
On Sun, 8 May 2005 03:30 am, Dustin Navea wrote:
Francois Gouget wrote:
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'.
Of course The Microsoft Fix(tm) would be to say "ahh to hell with it. Lets make our own proprietary shell and require that everyone using our product use that" :-D *ducks and runs for cover* I feel the heat of your flames already!
Dustin
yes, they should all be written using command.com or cmd.exe, honest thay should .-)
Bob
-
Dustin Navea -
Francois Gouget -
Robert Lunnon