Building Truecrypt 4.3 in Feisty: nightmare because [K]Ubuntu uses dash

[ocumo]

Installing Truecrypt by building the sources in Feisty is incredibly painful.

There are several "howtos" and "great ideas", out there, but the truth is, there is a serious problem that is not mentioned elsewhere:
The infamous "dash as sh" link in (K)Ubuntu is breaking the build.sh and the install.sh scripts in the Truecrypt 4.3 source. I have posted (user Hallaco-Ocumo) already on this in the Truecrypt forum, (http://forums.truecrypt.org/viewtopic.php?p=30722#30722)

As some people knows, [K]Ubuntu uses dash instead of sh (i.e., there is a link sh -> dash) and this is breaking a lot of scripts.

The build.sh and install.sh scripts in Truecrypt v4.3 are calling for sh on their first line:

#!/bin/sh

The problem is, that Ubuntu Edgy and Feisty will follow the link sh->dash and use dash instead. Now, dash has important differences from bash, specially: sourcing files from the current directory with a relative path, does not work if the current directory is not in the PATH. This is why there are so many problems and bugs reported (for getting it all, google for dash sh ubuntu) for scripts that don't work and give strange syntax errors or missing files, etc.

The question is: are the Truecrypt build and install scripts written for sh/dash and not for bash?

In the mean time, there are different ways of fixing this particular problem:

1.- Edit the Truecrypt's build.sh and install.sh scripts so that instead of having this line:

#!/bin/sh

it should show this:

#!/bin/bash

and then Ubuntu will use the correct shell. Or,

2.- Change the infamous link in (K)Ubuntu:

sudo rm /bin/sh
ln -s /bin/bash /bin/sh

Or, the Debian way:
2.- You can restore bash, by running

sudo dpkg-reconfigure dash

and then, when asked if you want to install dash, select 'NO', and restore bash

The long discussion in the Ubuntu developers community, is whether the link for sh should revert to bash to avoid that so many scripts are broken, or whether this should be the responsibility of the writers of scripts that should know what shell to invoke: bash, sh or whatever. The reasoning seems to be, that if a script calls sh but expects to find bash features, then this script is wrong.

Perhaps the solution is to have the build.sh and install.sh scripts of Truecrypt calling bash instead, since it obvious gets broken by using sh, at least in [K]Ubuntu.

Ocumo

[ocumo]

Re: Building Truecrypt 4.3 in Feisty: nightmare because [K]Ubuntu uses dash

I'm tempted to ask: "What are you talking about"?
...
It was not without issues but it worked once I stuck to the rules.

OK, I always use the full path names or cd to the directory in question, what's the problem?
Maybe some of the instructions you refer to are not so 'pure'?

This replay comes quite late, but nonetheless, this "comment" above is so useless and simultaneously so destructive, that I think I have to say several things about it, since this is a "kind", a "prototype" of a bad thing in Internet that has to be banned.

The sentence "It was not without issues" destroy the very essence of whatever else is written around.
There were issues. That _is_ the point. The process, this and any other processes in the Linux world should work without issues. This is what I, as a Linux "lover" and "evangelist" deeply wish. And then this is why these forums exist: to help people around, in a friendly way.

What I explained in my original post, is more than documented and it is so trivial to prove and to show the exact issue and the validity of what I have written, that only someone who has nothing useful to give to the Linux community would spend the time to write such negative posts instead of providing a sound question or technical and documented opinion, in a friendly way, because those who post in this forums are not "the enemy": we are a community, we are friends, working for the sake of each other, and should respect ourselves.

I wonder: what would be the point of the "post" above, anyway?

If the author would have wanted to say a valid, documented, substantial technical argument proving that I have said something wrong, or the documentation I have mentioned is questionable, I would be very happy to listen to decent arguments and if there would be anything to learn or to change, then even happier. But this is not what is written.

If the author would be trying to prove he is smarter than everybody else, then he fails by not even trying to have an argument, by not even reading what he has written and seeing his own paradox and the complete lack of any technical or knowledgeable contents that would provide any valuable contribution to help the Linux (and particularly here the Kubuntu) users that are less experienced.

If the author of that post would be trying to say that there were no issues with the TC 4.3 compilation, he pathetically fails because his own words ("It was not without issues") betray him. That is the saddest tragedy of that post.

If the author would be trying to say that my original post was not useful for him, well, ...who in the world cares? As of today, there have been more than 140 people reading this thread, and that must certainly be for a reason.

If the author would want to say that the fact he did not understood what I was saying and he run into other different troubles and he fixed that in whatever way, would somehow "prove" that everybody else in the world would also not "need" the explanations I gave, then he would have a very low IQ and would deserve a much more sympathetic and gentle treatment, in which case I am certainly not the right person to address those needs.

If the author would want to simply "hurt" for whatever irrational motivations, then he fails (and again, sorry, I couln't help, that is not my profession). In fact, when I wrote the original post, it was with the intention that nobody else in the world (including him!) should have the same issues I had (ideally any troubles at all) installing TC 4.3. So: what could make me happier than knowing that there is nobody having any kind of troubles with TC or any other application in Linux? If the author would not have had any "issues" I actually would have been happier! Would he understand this? It doesn't matter, anyway. There is no point trying to explain this to some people.

If the author would want to say that any Linux users that get in trouble when compiling/installing one application are idiots, and so those who publish a way of helping to reduce that pain are even worse, then he would have a very sick and distorted mind and should not be allowed to participate in any Linux or any other community for that matter. (And supreme irony: inadvertently, he would have insulted himself, by the way...)

I really hope that none of those are the intention of the unfortunate post above.

Just post for the sake of posting and saying nothing. The Internet would be a much better place if people would only say relevant things.

If I only would have helped just ONE person with my effort in taking precious time (for free) and sharing and documenting a way of installing an extremely useful application, then I would also be very happy. Interestingly, I already happen to know a friend who run into the same troubles and the information I provided helped him. That is what counts, when one give his time to fill an useful forum with user-friendly, well documented and serious information. For me, mission accomplished. What counts is the good will to help anybody who might be struggling with a similar problem, the will to give and help. That is all that counts. Whether there are people who hate those who like to give and like to help, does not really matters.

To destroy is more easy than to construct. I choose, though, to construct.