Re: [dev] [stali] Why lksh?

From: Evan Gates <evan.gates_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 08:48:10 -0700

On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 7:47 PM, Anselm R Garbe <garbeam_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> Looks like a man page fault to me, probably lksh.1 is copied over
> sh.1. The binary should be definitely mksh.

Yep, binary is named sh in stali.mk and bin.mk checks for $(BIN).1 so
we get sh.1 which is for lksh instead of mksh.1. Simple solution is to
make the binary named mksh, then have a postinst that either

1) symlinks: ln -sf mksh sh; ln -sf mksh.1 sh.1
2) renames: mv mksh sh; mv mksh.1 sh.1

Any thoughts on which approach would be better? I know most desktop
distros do sh symlinking, but I don't know if that's the best approach
for stali where we probably won't have any other sh options in the
first place.

-emg
Received on Mon Oct 10 2016 - 17:48:10 CEST