On Thu 01 Nov 2012, Alan BRASLAU wrote:
> Whats more, bash is found under /usr/local/bin/bash on FreeBSD so
> #! /bin/bash
> is bound to FAIL.
One traditional solution is to use
#!/usr/bin/env bash
This of course assumes the path to env, but I believe that the env
path is more standardized than
On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 12:10:58 +0100
Marco Patzer 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 an
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 a
On 1-11-2012 11:09, Uwe Koloska wrote:
Hello,
Am 31.10.2012 00:21, schrieb Hans Hagen:
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
Hello,
Am 31.10.2012 00:21, schrieb Hans Hagen:
> 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 dis
On 10/30/2012 07:21 PM, Hans Hagen wrote:
So the question is, should the scripts that come with context (like
the installer) be explicit and become #! /bin/bash ?
Hans
If you're depending on specific syntax or features of bash, that would
be the way to go. I suspect most/all Linux and B
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:21 AM, Hans Hagen 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
>
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
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 surpri
On 30-10-2012 18:50, Pontus Lurcock wrote:
On Tue 30 Oct 2012, Hans Hagen wrote:
FWIW, Debian and Ubuntu have a package ‘devscripts’ which includes a
program ‘checkbashisms’ to catch such things (Ubuntu started using
dash as the default sh back in 2006). Ubuntu also has some advice
hm, so i w
On 30-10-2012 18:38, Pontus Lurcock wrote:
On Tue 30 Oct 2012, Bill Meahan wrote:
On 10/30/2012 01:20 PM, Hans Hagen wrote:
filename 2>&1
This has been the correct Bourne shell (POSIX) syntax for many
years. I think it goes all the way back to Bell Labs V7 IIRC
instead of &>filename.
is
On 30-10-2012 18:38, Pontus Lurcock wrote:
On Tue 30 Oct 2012, Bill Meahan wrote:
On 10/30/2012 01:20 PM, Hans Hagen wrote:
filename 2>&1
This has been the correct Bourne shell (POSIX) syntax for many
years. I think it goes all the way back to Bell Labs V7 IIRC
instead of &>filename.
is
On Tue 30 Oct 2012, Hans Hagen wrote:
> >FWIW, Debian and Ubuntu have a package ‘devscripts’ which includes a
> >program ‘checkbashisms’ to catch such things (Ubuntu started using
> >dash as the default sh back in 2006). Ubuntu also has some advice
>
> hm, so i wonder why setuptex fails on that b
On 30-10-2012 18:38, Pontus Lurcock wrote:
On Tue 30 Oct 2012, Bill Meahan wrote:
On 10/30/2012 01:20 PM, Hans Hagen wrote:
filename 2>&1
This has been the correct Bourne shell (POSIX) syntax for many
years. I think it goes all the way back to Bell Labs V7 IIRC
instead of &>filename.
is
On 30-10-2012 18:26, Bill Meahan wrote:
On 10/30/2012 01:20 PM, Hans Hagen wrote:
>filename 2>&1
This has been the correct Bourne shell (POSIX) syntax for many years. I
think it goes all the way back to Bell Labs V7 IIRC
instead of &>filename.
is a "bash-ism"
sure, till one replaces bas
On Tue 30 Oct 2012, Bill Meahan wrote:
> On 10/30/2012 01:20 PM, Hans Hagen wrote:
> > >filename 2>&1
>
> This has been the correct Bourne shell (POSIX) syntax for many
> years. I think it goes all the way back to Bell Labs V7 IIRC
>
> >instead of &>filename.
>
> is a "bash-ism"
FWIW, Debian a
On 10/30/2012 01:20 PM, Hans Hagen wrote:
>filename 2>&1
This has been the correct Bourne shell (POSIX) syntax for many years. I
think it goes all the way back to Bell Labs V7 IIRC
instead of &>filename.
is a "bash-ism"
I checked the scripts in the context tree and so far found no
occ
Hi,
I wasted a whole afternoon figuring out why a job that runs ok on many
opensuse machines fails on a machine that runs a debian alpha
distribution (customer demand). I already had to fix all kind of startup
scripts due to the fact that sh(ell scripts) are run with dash which is
incompatibl
18 matches
Mail list logo
