Re: [dev] Re: wmii; make with /bin/bash not with /bin/sh

Kris Maglione wrote:
> On Thu, 20 May 2010 22:19:20 +0200
> David Schmid <info_AT_david-schmid.de> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 20 May 2010 21:46:01 +0200
>> David Engster <deng_AT_randomsample.de> wrote:
>>>> Now it says:
>>>>
>>>> MAKE all libbio/
>>>> ../util/compile: syntax error at line 13: `(' unexpected
>>>> make[1]: *** [bbuffered.o] Error 2
>>>> make: *** [dall] Error 2
>>> Sorry, forgot to mention that you still have to set /bin/bash in
>>> those scripts in util.
>> Now that looks awesome. The only thing that does not work is
>> cmd/wihack.sh, even when set to /bin/bash.
>>
>> FILTER cmd/wihack.sh
>> wihack.sh: bad substitution
>> make[1]: *** [wihack.out] Error 1
>> make: *** [dall] Error 2
>>
>> But I think I will figure out the rest.
>
>
> That's just because the make script runs a syntax check on sh scripts
> before it installs them. I'm afraid the only option is to edit
> mk/hdr.mk. It should probably use $(BINSH) there instead.
>
> Is there some reason you can't just replace /bin/sh with some
> reasonable shell? dash, ash, or ksh (which would run POSIX emulation in
> that case) should all do fine. I can't imagine that there are any
> scripts which would run under Bourne and not POSIX sh, and it'd
> probably save you some headaches elsewhere, too.
>
> Oh, and ash and ksh actually support proper commandline editing and
> histoy, unlike Solaris's shell, as I recall.

Seems like the sysadmin isn't quite fond of the idea of replacing the sh
command (which is actually something called jsh). Since it is quite
uncomfortable to discuss this with him over instant messaging I will
acquire the reason in person. But that isn't feasible until next weeks'
workdays.

-- 
regards and a nice weekend,
David