On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 09:34:26AM +0100, Sebastian Reitenbach wrote: > /bin/sh and /bin/ksh are hardlinks, but I'm not exactly sure if they behave > differently > when called one or the other way. Since I have postgresql backend, I only > tested my > patched version of the postgresql update script. The question is whether this script works with sh/ksh instead of bash as you changed it, not whether sh or ksh makes a difference.
> I tried to patch that script to make it work with our /bin/sh but that didn't > worked out > as easy as the other upgrade scripts. Then why do you keep changing the shebang if it doesn't work? > This is a real one-time run and I didn't want to make bash RUN_DEPENS for it. > I updated the description a bit to point out that people might need to > install it. Why not? What about users depending on this script after upgrade? Should they run into (subtle) issues that might even corrupt their data? If bash is *required* at runtime, you should add it to RUN_DEPENDS.
