> "François Revol" <revol@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > I believe we should really install bash as "bash" in the image and > > symlink it as sh, not the opposite as is currently done. > > > > I have a patch ready to apply, anyone against it ? > > Not that I would be against this, but why? Dunno, I don't think there would be any side effect, but with bash you never know. > > Actually it should also be told so in some define in the Jamfile > > somewhere... > > So it's not even complete... ;-) Just also needs changing -DPROGRAM='\"sh\"' to -DPROGRAM='\"bash\"' in the Jamfile I believe. François.