On 6 November 2012 04:54, Andrew Stubbs <a...@codesourcery.com> wrote: > > While it is true that "/usr/bin/env bash" is more portable than "/bin/bash", > I also don't like it as much. > > If I run a "#!/bin/bash" script without bash installed I get: > > /bin/bash: bad interpreter: No such file or directory > > If I try the same with "#!/usr/bin/env bash" I get: > > /bin/env: bad interpreter: No such file or directory
Perhaps you should get a better version of env? I get: [10026 eitan@radar ~ ]%./hello env: asdf: No such file or directory [10027 eitan@radar ~ !127!]%cat hello #!/usr/bin/env asdf > In the former case any mildly experienced Unix user will just sigh and run > the script under bash manually. In the later case you have to be very > experienced not to spend ages thinking you must be crazy or have found a > kernel bug, or something. In the former case the package maintainers must fix the portability bug the upstream author has introduced. In the latter case they just have to add a dependency. > It is, of course, the official Ccache maintainer's call which style is > preferred, or even whether it's better to find and stamp out the errant > bashism in the script, but my vote is for the simple /bin/bash option. The followup to this discussion indicates that /bin/sh seems to be sufficient (I need to check this myself when I get a chance). checkbashims sees nothing wrong. -- Eitan Adler _______________________________________________ ccache mailing list ccache@lists.samba.org https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache
