<div dir="ltr">On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Richard Purdie <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org" target="_blank">richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On Fri, 2013-05-10 at 12:00 +0100, Burton, Ross wrote:<br>
> On 10 May 2013 11:50, Phil Blundell <<a href="mailto:philb@brightsign.biz">philb@brightsign.biz</a>> wrote:<br>
> > Or you could replace the shell wrapper that create_wrapper() currently<br>
> > generates with either a compiled binary or a Python script. That would<br>
> > allow you to execl("/path/foo.real", "foo", ...), which I don't think<br>
> > you can do in shell but which would avoid this whole class of problem.<br>
><br>
> Bash can do that, but it's not POSIX. :/<br>
<br>
</div>I'm quite happy to have the wrapper as bash shell script. We only need<br>
dash compatibility in things that get run under /bin/sh (i.e. bitbake<br>
shell tasks).<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>So is there a conclusion regarding this issue? Should the wrapper be kepy as a bash shell script?</div><div style><br></div><div style>Thanks,</div><div style>Bogdan</div>
<div style> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Richard<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Openembedded-core mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org">Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core" target="_blank">http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>