On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:21 AM, Hans Hagen <pra...@wxs.nl> wrote: > On 30-10-2012 22:33, Bill Meahan wrote: > >> On 10/30/2012 01:39 PM, Hans Hagen wrote: >> >>> >>> sure, till one replaces bash by something non-bash-ish while the user >>> still thinks he's running bash (i always fear the moment that someone >>> decides that swapping the 'cp' arguments without renaming the command >>> is a good idea -) >>> >>> (i wouldn't be surprised if it can backfire badly in more complex >>> situations) >>> >>> Hans >>> >>> >> My background is in "commercial" Unix and I've had situations like >> having to administer an HP box (HPUX) a Sun box (Solaris) a Teradata box >> (some flavor or other of SYS V R4) some BSD and Linux on the same day. >> :) Only thing I could count on was the "official" AT&T Bourne shell >> syntax. >> >> I use ksh93 (the AT&T distribution) as my login shell. >> > > This assumes control over the login shell as well as control over what the > launchers of system processes use. I must admit that till now I always > assumed some stability in this, which is probably okay as long as one > sticks to one specific distribution (of linux). > > I think that the main problem is that #! /bin/sh can mean anything > (although in your case I suppose you expect it to be the bourne shell). > > So the question is, should the scripts that come with context (like the > installer) be explicit and become #! /bin/bash ? >
In my opinion, yes. And then bash first-setup.sh and source setuptex are ok. -- luigi
___________________________________________________________________________________ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki! maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________
