Petter Gustad <newsmailcomp6@gustad.com> writes:

> It might be history, but I think the problem was that dash is/was(?)

I should rephrase that as: The problems is that dash is not POSIX
compliant. I think that still is the case. 

//Petter

-- 
.sig removed by request. 

David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> writes:

> On 30/04/11 16:13, Petter Gustad wrote:
>> David Brown<david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com>  writes:
>>
>>> The easiest way to make sure you are running bash for a job like this,
>>> is simply to type "bash" - then do your install inside this shell.
>>
>> Note that if you run a script which starts with the bang notation:
>> #!/bin/sh it will launch dash, as /bin/sh is a link to /bin/dash on
>> Ubuntu. Some users replace this link with a link to bash instead.
>>
>
> That can certainly happen - but only if the script is badly written.
> If a script requires certain functionality from its shell, it should
> use the appropriate shell in the #! line.  You only use #!/bin/sh if
> you are happy with any posix-sh compliant shell - including dash.

It might be history, but I think the problem was that dash is/was(?)
not POSIX compliant. It's been a while since I looked into this, but
currently http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Almquist_shell says:

"much smaller than bash but still aiming at POSIX-compliancy" 

which I interpret as it not being fully POSIX compliant. I have seen
issues with this in the past and had sufficient amount of problems
which caused me to abandon dash completely as a POSIX compliant shell.

But as I said it might be history. However, somebody should have
updated Wikipedia if that was the case.


//Petter
-- 
.sig removed by request. 

On 01/05/11 19:38, jacko wrote:
> should not 'bash script' execute a script within bash with the #!
> having an effect, as #! is a system feature to find the shell to
> use?

#! is not a feature to find the shell to use - you specify the shell you 
want in the #! line.


Is there any way you could get a proper newsreader, or at least correct 
your settings for google groups (assuming that's what you use)?  You 
seem to make knowledgeable and potentially useful posts in a number of 
groups, but because your posts don't track references properly, and you 
don't include any quoted context, it is extremely difficult to follow 
you.  No one knows what or whom you are replying to.

Thanks,

David

On 05/01/2011 07:38 PM, jacko wrote:
> should not 'bash script' execute a script within bash with the #! having an effect, as #! is a system feature to find the shell to use?

Correct.

should not 'bash script' execute a script within bash with the #! having an effect, as #! is a system feature to find the shell to use?

On 30/04/11 16:13, Petter Gustad wrote:
> David Brown<david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com>  writes:
>
>> The easiest way to make sure you are running bash for a job like this,
>> is simply to type "bash" - then do your install inside this shell.
>
> Note that if you run a script which starts with the bang notation:
> #!/bin/sh it will launch dash, as /bin/sh is a link to /bin/dash on
> Ubuntu. Some users replace this link with a link to bash instead.
>

That can certainly happen - but only if the script is badly written.  If 
a script requires certain functionality from its shell, it should use 
the appropriate shell in the #! line.  You only use #!/bin/sh if you are 
happy with any posix-sh compliant shell - including dash.

But of course, there's always the possibility that the script writer 
doesn't know that...

mvh.,

David

David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> writes:

> The easiest way to make sure you are running bash for a job like this,
> is simply to type "bash" - then do your install inside this shell.

Note that if you run a script which starts with the bang notation:
#!/bin/sh it will launch dash, as /bin/sh is a link to /bin/dash on
Ubuntu. Some users replace this link with a link to bash instead.

//Petter
-- 
.sig removed by request. 

"Bruce Varley" <bv@NoSpam.com> wrote in message 
news:A8OdneHJpvd8GCrQnZ2dnUVZ8umdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
> Hi, Can anyone point me to some straightforward info re the above? The 
> Altera site installation pages aren't particularly clear, and none of the 
> links in the forums actually get me to anything useful, it's mostly 
> comments saying how awful the process is. TIA
Thanks everyone. Most helpful. 

On Apr 26, 7:56=A0pm, "Bruce Varley" <b...@NoSpam.com> wrote:
> Hi, Can anyone point me to some straightforward info re the above? The
> Altera site installation pages aren't particularly clear, and none of the
> links in the forums actually get me to anything useful, it's mostly comme=
nts
> saying how awful the process is. TIA

I have done it (9.1, 10.0 & 10.1), and I remember it being just as
easy as installing any other program - no pain whatsoever.

1: Extract the file from Altera to a (temp) directory.
2: Execute the setup script from that directory (use sudo if
installing to /opt).
3: Answer a few questions when prompted.

Getting the USB blaster working takes a little effort; all of their
scripts reference a deprecated USB I/O structure.  Several solutions
are in the wiki.

RK

you will have to have execute permissions set on the file also.

Have not installed byteblaster or Usb blaster support yet, so not sure how easy or hard this is, and not sure if a usb to parallel port adapter will work either.

version 9.1 windows under wine works for the front end but fails with a tcl error when compiling vhdl. which is why I installed the 10 under linux native.