Scripting non-bourne shell stuff with #!/bin/sh at the top *should* break.
Even if /bin/sh is a link to bash/ksh that changes its behavior based on the
link. If your code breaks, shame on you. You shouldn't use
bashisms/kshisms in #!/bin/sh.
If you want bash or ksh, use #!/bin/bash or
On 10/1/07, Tom Buskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripting non-bourne shell stuff with #!/bin/sh at the top *should* break.
Ah, yes, maximum pain as a design goal. :-(
If you want bash or ksh, use #!/bin/bash or #!/bin/ksh.
What about an extension feature that exists in more than one
On 10/1/07, Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/1/07, Tom Buskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripting non-bourne shell stuff with #!/bin/sh at the top *should*
break.
Ah, yes, maximum pain as a design goal. :-(
What I'm saying is #!/bin/sh should run like #!/bin/sh. export
=Another example. This one is [was] my favorite; I think it was
=the first one to bork on me. The error message was [is] so obscure
=that for the past year I've lived with band-aiding each if
=statement one at a time, just to have something which works.
=(One uses if statements much more
On 10/1/07, Flaherty, Patrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
=The band-aid, by the way, was that = instead of == works.
=(And how ugly is THAT? And how do you explain that to a student?)
FYI, the correct operator is = and == is an extension of bash. ==
should
not be used.
I thought
On 10/1/07, Tom Buskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's the relevant bash (3.2.9) man page on Fedora 7:
string == pattern
True, if string matches pattern. Any part of pattern can
be
quoted to cause it to be matched as a string. With a
successful
On October 01, 2007, Tom Buskey sent me the following:
If you want bash or ksh, use #!/bin/bash or #!/bin/ksh. If it doesn't exist
in /bin, put it there where it belongs.
Coming from a primarily FreeBSD background, I'm against the idea of
putting bash in /usr/bin. In my world, /usr is for
On 10/1/07, Jeffry Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/1/07, Tom Buskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's the relevant bash (3.2.9) man page on Fedora 7:
string == pattern
True, if string matches pattern. Any part of pattern
can
be
quoted
On Mon, 2007-10-01 at 10:30 -0400, Tom Buskey wrote:
Thank goodness environments have converged a
bit. /bin/perl, /bin/bash exist in Solaris, Linux, Cygwin, xBSD and
(I think) MacOSX.
/bin/bash is present in OSX, but not in the default FreeBSD install or
the default DragonFly BSD install.
On Oct 1, 2007, at 10:30, Tom Buskey wrote:
What I'm saying is #!/bin/sh should run like #!/bin/sh. export
VAR=value
doesn't work in bourne shell. So if you put that in a bourne shell
script
with #!/bin/sh, then it should fail
That seems to be the root cause of the problem, IMHO.
Bill Sconce wrote:
Arrogant. Unbelievable. The side effects were reported during beta
and still the developers did this.
Clearly, they made a decision, and you (and a number of others) just
don't like like it. The developer's justification appears to be because
I think its best this way (My
On 9/28/07, Bill Sconce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(And remember to not trust Ubuntu. They don't think things through
to the consequences. They don't listen, either. See below.)
How about the consequences of using the syntax of one language and
asking the shell/interpreter/compiler of a different
On Friday, Sep 28th 2007 at 14:53 -, quoth Bill Sconce:
=___
=Another example. This one is [was] my favorite; I think it was
=the first one to bork on me. The error message was [is] so obscure
=that for the past year I've lived with band-aiding each if
Ben Scott wrote:
Personally, I think the right thing to do is make bash the de facto
standard on all *nix systems. We don't need this kind of headache.
But others obviously disagree. Entropy wins again. But then, it
always does.
Always? Man, there ought to be a law :)
--
Ted Roche
Ben Scott wrote:
On 9/29/07, Tyson Sawyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you say '/bin/sh' then you should speak '/bin/sh'.
If you are speaking '/bin/bash', then you should say, '/bin/bash'.
It gets ugly in the other direction, too, BTW. Some people fall the
habit of just putting
On 9/29/07, Tyson Sawyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you say '/bin/sh' then you should speak '/bin/sh'.
If you are speaking '/bin/bash', then you should say, '/bin/bash'.
It gets ugly in the other direction, too, BTW. Some people fall the
habit of just putting #!/bin/bash at the top of every
Hi, all -
You may know this: Ubuntu's default shell isn't bash.
[I grepped to see if anyone has mentioned the issue here
before; it seems not. Apology if my post is a duplicate.]
For months I've been seeing difficult-to-understand problems in
shell scripts: syntax errors, bad substitution;
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bill Sconce wrote:
Hi, all -
You may know this: Ubuntu's default shell isn't bash.
Only partially true. Installer/dpkg asks you whether you want dash (i.e./bin/sh
- /bin/dash symlink).
Sarunas Burdulis
Dartmouth
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
On Sep 28, 2007, at 14:53, Bill Sconce wrote:
/bin/sh: Syntax error: Bad substitution
I ran into this earlier, Oracle distributes:
#!/bin/sh
scripts with their installers that use bash functions and bork on
Solaris's sh with substitutions.
export FOO=bar
even fails.
They also
Bill McGonigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So who has a tool that scans your scripts for bash-isms?
dash -n your-script -- perhaps?
Regards,
--kevin
--
GnuPG ID: B280F24E God, I loved that Pontiac.
alumni.unh.edu!kdc -- Tom Waits
On 9/28/07, Bill McGonigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So who has a tool that scans your scripts for bash-isms?
grep -E . /path/to/my-script.sh
;-)
-- Ben
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:31:13 -0400
Sarunas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bill Sconce wrote:
Hi, all -
You may know this: Ubuntu's default shell isn't bash.
Only partially true. Installer/dpkg asks you whether you want dash
(i.e./bin/sh -
22 matches
Mail list logo
