On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 12:10:58 +0100 Marco Patzer <home...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> 2012-11-01 Uwe Koloska: > > > There is stability in that /bin/sh always must be a (posix > > compatible) bourne (not again) style shell! > > True > > > * rewrite the scripts to be truly posix and use #! /bin/sh (the dash > > links from another mail may help) > > * leave the scripts alone with all their bashisms and declare them > > with #! /bin/bash > > > > My advice on this is: in all shellscripts you write, declare the > > shell that you are testing the script with -- so on most linux > > systems (and in windows unix environments like msys) use /bin/bash > > and only change this to /bin/sh if you have to. > > I do it the other way. Always write /bin/sh compatible scripts > (actually first-setup.sh uses /bin/sh) and resort to /bin/bash if > bash specific features save considerable effort. > > > For example to make it compatible to a minimal system (a jeos VM > > comes to mind) that is not supposed to provide /bin/bash. > > FreeBSD comes without bash installed by default. Whats more, bash is found under /usr/local/bin/bash on FreeBSD so #! /bin/bash is bound to FAIL. Best use posix standard scripting. There is no need for bashisms. Alan ___________________________________________________________________________________ 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 ___________________________________________________________________________________
