Re: Autoconf build targets
On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 01:00:21PM -0400, Nathan Hawkins wrote:
> I've read parts of that thread. For the most part, I'm not in sympathy
> with the Hurd on this. Filesystem should be laid out according to FHS
> unless there's a compelling reason not to, in which case FHS needs to be
If you use /usr/lib/bsd it will be at most a minor violation, much
preferable than /usr since no custom directories can be put in there.
But of course if there's a good reson to use /usr/bsd a draft
could be filed to the FHS people (the GNU folks are going to do that)
> Packages which depend on a specific shell to build shouldn't be trying
> to use /bin/sh. The build system for this large source package calls
> /bin/sh, and fails to work with bash.
Bash can be /bin/sh because it's POSIX-complaint. Any script using
non-POSIX extensions that has /bin/sh as its interpreter has a bug
in Debian context.
IIRC, /bin/sh is a C shell in *BSD? Then you should set interpreter
to /bin/csh and add a dependency on csh | c-shell to the corresponding
> Since bash is default /bin/sh, and
> since what exactly is /bin/sh is subject to change by the user, this
> must be patched in the source to use something other than /bin/sh.
> Either that or fix the scripts so they will work with bash. I don't have
> time to do the latter, and it'd be more work to maintain.
Agreed, I just say that something other should be a Debianised shell
like /bin/csh preferably to the /usr/bsd/bin/sh hierrachy.
"5 years from now everyone will be running
free GNU on their 200 MIPS, 64M SPARCstation-5"
Andrew S. Tanenbaum, 30 Jan 1992
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com