Re: Portability of shell scripts from other *nixes
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:08:07 -0600 Doug Poland articulated: > Hello, > > I'm trying port some shell scripts to FreeBSD that were originally > written on Darwin (OS X). > > The issue I'm having is the shebang line of the scripts in OS X is > #!/bin/sh, and it turns out that is really an instance of bash, and > the code contains some bashisms. On FreeBSD I have bash in > /usr/local/bin/bash. > > Is there an "easy/best" way to have a single shebang that works on > both OS's? I'd rather not change FreeBSD's bourne shell to bash with > any symlinking of /usr/local/bin/bash to /bin/sh. I have written several scripts for use on different OSs, all written in Bash since that is my preferred scripting language, and have used this as the shebang quite effectively: #!/usr/bin/env bash By the way, what version of Bash? If it is v4.x there are many improvements that do not work on older v3.x and v2.x versions. -- Jerry ♔ Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __ Religion is the anthropomorphization of reality, that behind it all there's an invisible man pulling invisible strings ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Portability of shell scripts from other *nixes
>> On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:08:07 -0600, >> "Doug Poland" said: D> I'm trying port some shell scripts to FreeBSD that were originally D> written on Darwin (OS X). The issue I'm having is the shebang line of D> the scripts in OS X is #!/bin/sh, and it turns out that is really an D> instance of bash, and the code contains some bashisms. On FreeBSD I D> have bash in /usr/local/bin/bash. D> Is there an "easy/best" way to have a single shebang that works on both D> OS's? I'd rather not change FreeBSD's bourne shell to bash with any D> symlinking of /usr/local/bin/bash to /bin/sh. Do you have the Korn shell installed? I've found that to be a nice compromise for scripts that have bash-isms. -- Karl Vogel I don't speak for the USAF or my company Texted a friend meaning to ask if she was busy. Me: "Are you busty?" Her: "They're manageable, what's up?" --Jimmy Fallon, #textingdisaster tweets, 13 Jan 2012 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Portability of shell scripts from other *nixes
On Jan 25, 2012, at 8:13 PM, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> Hi--
>
> On Jan 25, 2012, at 7:24 PM, Da Rock wrote:
>> On 01/26/12 12:55, Doug Poland wrote:
>>> This gets me closer, but the scripts behave differently now on OS X. For
>>> example, printf's don't output the same.
>>
>> Try searching on google and find out exactly what sh MacOSX is using. Then
>> you'd have a better idea on what you're working with.
>
> /bin/sh on MacOSX is:
>
> $ /bin/sh --version
> GNU bash, version 3.2.48(1)-release (x86_64-apple-darwin10.0)
> Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>
> ...and it has been using bash as /bin/sh since 10.2 or so.
>
> Anyway, running bash as /bin/sh versus as /bin/bash likely affects whether it
> invokes printf as a builtin(1) command or as an external command. It's
> possible that invoking /usr/bin/printf instead of just printf in the scripts
> might resolve the issue(s).
>
If that's the problem, perhaps a "trick" can do:
printf(){builtin printf "$@";}
At the top after the she-bang. Should cause all invocations to use built-in
versus otherwise by defining a function that explicitly calls the built-in.
--
Devin
_
The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all
copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and
(iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any
message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons
other than the intended recipient. Thank you.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Portability of shell scripts from other *nixes
On Jan 25, 2012, at 5:08 PM, Doug Poland wrote: > Hello, > > I'm trying port some shell scripts to FreeBSD that were originally > written on Darwin (OS X). > > The issue I'm having is the shebang line of the scripts in OS X is > #!/bin/sh, and it turns out that is really an instance of bash, and > the code contains some bashisms. On FreeBSD I have bash in > /usr/local/bin/bash. > > Is there an "easy/best" way to have a single shebang that works on > both OS's? I'd rather not change FreeBSD's bourne shell to bash with > any symlinking of /usr/local/bin/bash to /bin/sh. > > > -- > Regards, > Doug Mac OS X defaults to /bin/bash but things get weird because sh on mac is also bash. Funnily enough a complete separate binary and not a symlink. Anyway, this means things written for the Mac may not work directly on FreeBSD. What I mean is that bash3 syntax is not going to be backwardly compatible with sh. If you wish to retain the bashiness of the scripts then the easiest option would be to install the bash (3.x) port and use env to invoke the appropriate shell on each system. Regards, Mikel King BSD News Network http://bsdnews.net skype: mikel.king http://twitter.com/mikelking ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Portability of shell scripts from other *nixes
Hi-- On Jan 25, 2012, at 7:24 PM, Da Rock wrote: > On 01/26/12 12:55, Doug Poland wrote: >> This gets me closer, but the scripts behave differently now on OS X. For >> example, printf's don't output the same. > > Try searching on google and find out exactly what sh MacOSX is using. Then > you'd have a better idea on what you're working with. /bin/sh on MacOSX is: $ /bin/sh --version GNU bash, version 3.2.48(1)-release (x86_64-apple-darwin10.0) Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. ...and it has been using bash as /bin/sh since 10.2 or so. Anyway, running bash as /bin/sh versus as /bin/bash likely affects whether it invokes printf as a builtin(1) command or as an external command. It's possible that invoking /usr/bin/printf instead of just printf in the scripts might resolve the issue(s). Regards, -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Portability of shell scripts from other *nixes
On 01/26/12 12:55, Doug Poland wrote: On Jan 25, 2012, at 18:04 , Chuck Swiger wrote: On Jan 25, 2012, at 2:08 PM, Doug Poland wrote: The issue I'm having is the shebang line of the scripts in OS X is #!/bin/sh, and it turns out that is really an instance of bash, and the code contains some bashisms. On FreeBSD I have bash in /usr/local/bin/bash. Is there an "easy/best" way to have a single shebang that works on both OS's? I'd rather not change FreeBSD's bourne shell to bash with any symlinking of /usr/local/bin/bash to /bin/sh. Try using something like: #!/usr/bin/env bash (If the shell scripts are something written by Apple rather than by third-parties, please also consider filing a bug report.) This gets me closer, but the scripts behave differently now on OS X. For example, printf's don't output the same. Try searching on google and find out exactly what sh MacOSX is using. Then you'd have a better idea on what you're working with. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Portability of shell scripts from other *nixes
On Jan 25, 2012, at 18:04 , Chuck Swiger wrote: > On Jan 25, 2012, at 2:08 PM, Doug Poland wrote: >> The issue I'm having is the shebang line of the scripts in OS X is >> #!/bin/sh, and it turns out that is really an instance of bash, and >> the code contains some bashisms. On FreeBSD I have bash in >> /usr/local/bin/bash. >> >> Is there an "easy/best" way to have a single shebang that works on >> both OS's? I'd rather not change FreeBSD's bourne shell to bash with >> any symlinking of /usr/local/bin/bash to /bin/sh. > > Try using something like: > > #!/usr/bin/env bash > > (If the shell scripts are something written by Apple rather than by > third-parties, please also consider filing a bug report.) > This gets me closer, but the scripts behave differently now on OS X. For example, printf's don't output the same. -- Regards, Doug ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Portability of shell scripts from other *nixes
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012, Doug Poland wrote: I'm trying port some shell scripts to FreeBSD that were originally written on Darwin (OS X). The issue I'm having is the shebang line of the scripts in OS X is #!/bin/sh, and it turns out that is really an instance of bash, and the code contains some bashisms. On FreeBSD I have bash in /usr/local/bin/bash. Is there an "easy/best" way to have a single shebang that works on both OS's? I'd rather not change FreeBSD's bourne shell to bash with any symlinking of /usr/local/bin/bash to /bin/sh. Turns out that causes mysterious problems: http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=29088 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Portability of shell scripts from other *nixes
On Jan 25, 2012, at 2:08 PM, Doug Poland wrote: > The issue I'm having is the shebang line of the scripts in OS X is > #!/bin/sh, and it turns out that is really an instance of bash, and > the code contains some bashisms. On FreeBSD I have bash in > /usr/local/bin/bash. > > Is there an "easy/best" way to have a single shebang that works on > both OS's? I'd rather not change FreeBSD's bourne shell to bash with > any symlinking of /usr/local/bin/bash to /bin/sh. Try using something like: #!/usr/bin/env bash (If the shell scripts are something written by Apple rather than by third-parties, please also consider filing a bug report.) Regards, -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Portability of shell scripts from other *nixes
On 01/26/12 08:08, Doug Poland wrote: Hello, I'm trying port some shell scripts to FreeBSD that were originally written on Darwin (OS X). The issue I'm having is the shebang line of the scripts in OS X is #!/bin/sh, and it turns out that is really an instance of bash, and the code contains some bashisms. On FreeBSD I have bash in /usr/local/bin/bash. Is there an "easy/best" way to have a single shebang that works on both OS's? I'd rather not change FreeBSD's bourne shell to bash with any symlinking of /usr/local/bin/bash to /bin/sh. Cant you simply change the shebang to !#/usr/local/bin/bash? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
