X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
From:	ericblake AT comcast DOT net (Eric Blake)
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: bash vs sh in scripts
Date:	Wed, 07 Dec 2005 20:29:21 +0000
Message-Id:	<120720052029.19235.43974621000C83AD00004B2322007358340A050E040D0C079D0A@comcast.net>
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

> 
> /bin/sh should exist and be a hard-link to /bin/bash.  If this is not
> the case you have an installation problem.  The bash postinstall script
> should ensure this.

Actually, it should be a copy rather than a hard link, since hard links
can't be broken to be upgraded while the postinstall script is
running.  But the postinstall takes care of that.

> 
> /bin vs. /usr/bin is meaningless since they're the same under cygwin.

Unless you've messed with your mount points.

> 
> If you have no /bin/sh you will run into countless problems all over the
> place, such as anything that calls system().

By the way, attaching the output of 'cygcheck -svr' would have
pointed out all of these issues.

--
Eric Blake
volunteer cygwin bash maintainer

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -