Re: [PATCH] Use bash for test.sh.
Mike Frysinger <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.compilers.ccache |
|---|---|
| Organization | wh0rd.org |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Tuesday 06 November 2012 11:53:12 Eitan Adler wrote: > On 6 November 2012 04:54, Andrew Stubbs <[email protected]> wrote: > > While it is true that "/usr/bin/env bash" is more portable than > > "/bin/bash", I also don't like it as much. > > > > If I run a "#!/bin/bash" script without bash installed I get: > > /bin/bash: bad interpreter: No such file or directory > > > > If I try the same with "#!/usr/bin/env bash" I get: > > /bin/env: bad interpreter: No such file or directory > > Perhaps you should get a better version of env? ironic considering you're espousing a change to support crap systems that aren't relevant. if the script is written in bash and is intended to be, then /bin/bash is the correct answer. if the script is intended to be POSIX shell, then /bin/sh is the correct answer. using env is just stupid. -mike _______________________________________________ ccache mailing list [email protected] https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 836 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAABAgAGBQJQnej+AAoJEEFjO5/oN/WBxN8QANomrXFO/PtReMwa85Yo7uWx um0cdm+KS8+mUVqPHHztOB473FUFVQDdJSoiwFLMor7/D0wwISZm22t88PqmkX/o ZHJOS3h7CTnZ+RjfRrrDz2c/OqrCXQ1ajwqLfFDimklhjc6XXlzwAcnhA/PnHOlq oUVfs5Me4EwCAxx4Mi6IE8dWFg+blGzQqSIrd4cKkggwQAzDauwMr0AqD3Q0RmbW gXQXmX/+xLUYq/1/9u2TxwrOzF4dFH2QcrguoIN5oWPeyioSXkSaG+4z6VuJ48KE m+eNLJazgkUKk5pHpIdNBNZ8XRneTjFr5X+idLlBG3urAOmOyoGZdMylykfMg1OO F3Rc2IBQ77ZCF+QYTFVp2Rq4bD/bgKCdlju7xpZlqHLCH6QQQaSTH29LBckXx4Em /sTUy4nKuuSDsSr5V8pCHs4GWNpvdKck/NLPV0mK2Lu2g3/eMcRNY3DXbR2zjxMv 2DCXiDysHpH+84osZm3eXtAh+Eu9hmiJE2s9fX30mb+32FhEfR9m8YaTc0GBLYVt j9bvOYH+qcY+P7va4Xn1RlXU6eYyuSUKuoh3Ic7wkm5bVPgW9rQ3UMyskAXQOPPw RP/mOtOtQAkwsLbeQBvJeSuWxjN6yvgEBfh5KC5BGIgFaV7gjafCkjp9vd/wqrlc WeipDVG762oKwaxDQZoJ =HonG -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----