On Tuesday 06 November 2012 11:53:12 Eitan Adler wrote: > 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?
ironic considering you're espousing a change to support crap systems that aren't relevant. if the script is written in bash and is intended to be, then /bin/bash is the correct answer. if the script is intended to be POSIX shell, then /bin/sh is the correct answer. using env is just stupid. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ ccache mailing list ccache@lists.samba.org https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache
