On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 06:48:21PM -0700, Jeremy Boynes wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >toby cabot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 05/07/2005 12:59:14 AM: > >> > >>I like the idea of using a well-known baseline for the Geronimo > >>scripts, but could we call the shell script "geronimo" instead of > >>"geronimo.sh"? I prefer to not expose the implementation (shell > >>script) in the interface. > > > > > >Are you concerned that we may change shells in the future? > > > >The startup script should have the following on the first line to instruct > >the system which shell interpreter we are using. > >#! /bin/sh > > > > Not every version of Unix places the shell in the same place which can > make this problematic. > > #!/bin/sh should work for most, /provided to stick to sh/ and don't use > ksh or bash extensions (just in case you happen to get a genuine sh > implementation). >
Right. And just an reminder, Linux and OSX don't actually have sh on the machine, it's just bash symlinked (linux) or copied (osx). Something to remember when testing the script. -David
