In my opinion people should only write scripts for posix shells, but that'd be a huge development i guess, so just using #!/usr/bin/env bash is fine, and make bash as a dependency if it is not already.
On (2010-10-28 01:13), Tor Lillqvist wrote: > Should we change all the shell scripts that use bashisms on the "upper" level > (from the "build" repo) to start with #!/usr/bin/env bash ? Is that then > (finally) a good and reliable solution to the problem whether to use bash or > not, and where bash is in case we do want to use it? Or is there some system > on which env is not in /usr/bin ? Or does it annoy somebody to have l shell > scripts first exec env and then bash, with a (very slight) slowdown? > > Presumably we do require bash to be available in PATH (the "inner" build > mechanism already does that as far as I know), and can continue doing that. > But what we cannot rely on is that bash would be at /bin/bash, and even less > that /bin/sh would be bash. > > A somewhat related issue is, can we require that the interactive shell used > by the developer is a Bourne-style shell? Should we continue to generate the > *Env.Set scriptlet for csh or is just the *Env.Set.sh one for Bourne-style > shells enough? Do *BSD-based developers often use some csh-style shell as > their interactive shell? At least on Linux I assume it is very rare. > > --tml > > _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
