Re: The right way to invoke sh from a freebsd makefile?

On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 05:37:51PM -0600, Ian Lepore wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-09-22 at 19:27 -0400, Glen Barber wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 05:18:25PM -0600, Ian Lepore wrote:
> > > What's the right way to launch the bourne shell from a makefile?  I had
> > > assumed the ${SHELL} variable would be set to "the right" copy
> > > of /bin/sh (like maybe the one in tmp or legacy at various stages).  It
> > > appears that that's not the case, and ${SHELL} is whatever comes from
> > > the environment, which can lead to using csh or bash or whatever.
> > > 
> > > I see some of our makefiles use just a bare "sh" which seems reasonable
> > > to me, but I don't want to glitch this in src/include/Makefile again.
> > > The goal is to run a script in src/include/Makefile by launching sh with
> > > the script name (as opposed to launching the script and letting the #!
> > > do its thing, which doesn't work if the source dir is mounted noexec).
> > > 
> > 
> > I think BUILDENV_SHELL is what you are looking for.  For this specific
> > case, I think instead of '#!/bin/sh', maybe '#!/usr/bin/env sh' may be
> > preferable.
> > 
> > Glen
> > 
> 
> No, BUILDENV_SHELL is a special thing... it's used when you "make
> buildenv" to chroot into a cross-build environment to work
> interactively.  I added that long ago because I can't live in a csh
> shell (I mean, I can't do anything, I'm totally lost), and I wanted a
> way to have "make buildenv" put me right into bash (of course, you have
> to have bash in the chroot).
> 

Ah, right.  Thanks for the sanity check.

> The flavor of hashbang to use shouldn't matter, since what I'm after
> here is launching the shell to run the script without using the hashbang
> mechanism.
> 

You can hard-code /bin/sh directly, but what I was getting at with the
'#!/usr/bin/env sh' is that the 'sh' interpreter of the build
environment could be used (instead of /bin/sh directly).  Then you don't
need to worry about the path to sh(1).

Glen