Please read this before reporting a bug:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines
Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.
REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines
Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.
REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
FS#12423 - /usr/sbin/gconfpkg needs bash
Attached to Project:
Arch Linux
Opened by Pierce Lopez (ploxiln) - Friday, 12 December 2008, 07:19 GMT
Last edited by Jan de Groot (JGC) - Friday, 26 December 2008, 14:07 GMT
Opened by Pierce Lopez (ploxiln) - Friday, 12 December 2008, 07:19 GMT
Last edited by Jan de Groot (JGC) - Friday, 26 December 2008, 14:07 GMT
|
DetailsDescription:
In package gconf 2.24.0-1 /usr/sbin/gconfpkg This script declares "#!/bin/sh" at the start, but needs bash to run due to using an array variable (named "schemas") I ran into this installing libgksu (during the post-install hook) while I had /bin/sh linking to /bin/dash. Yes, I replaced the symlink /bin/sh -> /bin/bash (owned by package bash) with the symlink /bin/sh -> /bin/dash. I understand if this is totally not supported, but so far this is the first issue I've run into. I also wasn't sure whether this should be reported upstream, so lazy as I am I reported it here first. I temporarily fixed /usr/sbin/gconfpkg to start with "#!/bin/bash" and reinstalled libgksu and that worked for me in the short term. |
This task depends upon
Closed by Jan de Groot (JGC)
Friday, 26 December 2008, 14:07 GMT
Reason for closing: Fixed
Additional comments about closing: Removed bash arrays from gconf 2.24.0-2.
Friday, 26 December 2008, 14:07 GMT
Reason for closing: Fixed
Additional comments about closing: Removed bash arrays from gconf 2.24.0-2.
Comment by Gavin Bisesi (Daenyth) -
Friday, 12 December 2008, 14:53 GMT
No, you're right to report it as a bug even if it's not the default. Setups like the one you describe should be supported IMO.
Comment by Glenn Matthys (RedShift) -
Saturday, 13 December 2008, 15:57 GMT
Daenyth, why would we start supporting setups where symlinks provided by packages get replaced by the users? That's the same as your garage allowing your petrol engine to run on diesel.
Comment by Jan de Groot (JGC) -
Saturday, 13 December 2008, 19:31 GMT
The whole bug is that we're using bashism's while specifying a POSIX-compliant interpreter as shell to use for gconfpkg. Special bash syntax is not POSIX-compatible, so we have to specify bash specifical.