On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:21 AM, Hans Hagen
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 a good idea -)
(i wouldn't be surprised if it can backfire badly in more complex situations)
Hans
My background is in "commercial" Unix and I've had situations like having to administer an HP box (HPUX) a Sun box (Solaris) a Teradata box (some flavor or other of SYS V R4) some BSD and Linux on the same day. :) Only thing I could count on was the "official" AT&T Bourne shell syntax.
I use ksh93 (the AT&T distribution) as my login shell.
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 distribution (of linux).
I think that the main problem is that #! /bin/sh can mean anything (although in your case I suppose you expect it to be the bourne shell).
So the question is, should the scripts that come with context (like the installer) be explicit and become #! /bin/bash ?
In my opinion, yes. And then bash first-setup.sh and source setuptex are ok. -- luigi