portability improvements for wineshelllink script

Robert Lunnon bobl at optushome.com.au
Sat May 7 07:16:18 CDT 2005

On Sat, 7 May 2005 08:52 pm, Francois Gouget wrote:
> On Sat, 7 May 2005, Robert Lunnon wrote:
> [...]
> > # diff -u wineshelllink.old  wineshelllink
> > --- wineshelllink.old   mer mai   4 11:47:30 2005
> > +++ wineshelllink       mer mai   4 11:50:03 2005
> > @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> > -#!/bin/sh
> > +#!/bin/bash
> This is wrong. Some users may not have bash installed and the script
> should still work on their systems. So the fix is not to make the
> script fail to run on any system which does not have bash but to
> modify it so it works with any standard Bourne shell, including the
> Solaris one.

Wrong? Well actually, bash is wrong, it doesn't properly emulate Bourne shell 
behaviour when called as sh, a constant source of irritation for Solaris 
users I assure you. So the "Correct" fix is to fix bash, but then doing that 
will break half of linux.  Now you see why I choose Solaris...   But this is 
besides the point. 

Let's agree the solution is not necessarily *Wrong*, It does in fact work, so 
it can't be wrong. The script as written is bash feature bound, and therefore 
should be executed by bash.  What you really mean is that Laurent didn't fix 
the problem the way you wanted it to be fixed. 

BTW I  have no objection to making wine dependent on bash, bash is available 
for all platforms and is probably more regular than bourne shell across 
platforms, though I think perhaps perhaps ksh might be a safer standard shell  
choice and it's more likely to be closer than /bin/sh to being able to parse 
bash dependent scripts properly.

Maybe there are other thoughts out there on which interpreter would be best 
for wine's purposes.

Perhaps Laurent  might be willing to take a look at the bash dependencies, if 
not I'll add it to my patch list to be maintained outside the wine project 
until I get around to looking at it.


More information about the wine-devel mailing list