Busybox build problem

[Natanael Copa]

On Sun, 2007-02-18 at 12:03 +0100, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> On Sunday 18 February 2007 04:28, Natanael Copa wrote:
> > > Unfortunately it means that fixing just busybox's stripts
> > > is not a solution - there are tons of other shell scripts
> > > lying aroung.
> > > 
> > > dash should support "function". It shouldn't be too hard - 
> > 
> > Since busybox ash is based on dash, this applies to busybox ash too.
> > 
> > I am using gentoo's bash centric init scripts, patching them to work
> > with busybox's ash. Its amazing how much really works in dash/ash and
> > most things that don't work are this kind of "meaningless" bash
> > features that just add bloat to your shell and can easy be avoided by
> > doing simple changes in the script. (like removing the "function"
> > keyword from function declarations)
> > 
> > I'd prefer people stop using bash specific things,
> 
> It's too late. Face the reality. bash installed base is too big.
> 
> > rather than trying 
> > to patch all shells to support all bash wierdness.
> 
> How you realistically imagine everyone starting to audit all their
> scripts for usage of "function"? How many man-years will it take?
> Then compare it to the effort required to add support for this feature
> to dash.

I am doing it with gentoo init scripts. It's not that much work. (less
than rewrite for runinit). I'm doing it because bash is almost the size
as my entire busybox.

In your case, on a building machine, sure, you can expect bash to be
there. In that case, as someone already explained, use the:

#!/bin/bash