On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 09:34:26AM +0100, Sebastian Reitenbach wrote:
> /bin/sh and /bin/ksh are hardlinks, but I'm not exactly sure if they behave differently
> when called one or the other way. Since I have postgresql backend, I only tested my
> patched version of the postgresql update script.
The question is whether this script works with sh/ksh instead of bash
as you changed it, not whether sh or ksh makes a difference.
> I tried to patch that script to make it work with our /bin/sh but that didn't worked out
> as easy as the other upgrade scripts.
Then why do you keep changing the shebang if it doesn't work?
> This is a real one-time run and I didn't want to make bash RUN_DEPENS for it.
> I updated the description a bit to point out that people might need to install it.
Why not? What about users depending on this script after upgrade? Should
they run into (subtle) issues that might even corrupt their data?
If bash is *required* at runtime, you should add it to RUN_DEPENDS.
No comments:
Post a Comment