Re: shells/bash port, add a knob which symlinks to /bin/bash ?

On 09/13/14 11:32, Craig Rodrigues wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Bryan Drewery <bdrewery_at_freebsd.org> wrote:
>
>> There's no reason for bash (and perl) to be exceptions to the 24000
>> other ports that install to /usr/local/bin. I can think of dozens of
>> other ports that will fall into the same arguments being made here, but
>> it does not mean it is the right thing for FreeBSD.
>>
>> If you want to install the symlink on your system feel free to do it. I
>> install a static bash to /bin/bash on mine and only because I prefer
>> bash shell and want it in / for single-user mode. That's my personal
>> choice though.
>>
>> The proper fix is to fix scripts to be portable and use #! /usr/bin/env
>> bash rather than /bin/bash.
>>
> Technically, I agree with you that people should write portable shell
> scripts,
> and use #!/usr/bin/env bash rather than #!/bin/bash.
>
> Pushing that behavior upstream is not always practical these days, where
> FreeBSD is in the minority, while Linux and MacOS X are in the vast
> majority of where
> people are doing development and learning how to write shell scripts these
> days.
>
> The /bin/bash thing is relatively minor, but I brought it up, because I see
> it so much.
> I've seen it in the jobs that I've worked at.  I've also seen it when
> dealing with Google
> Summer of Code students.  I've seen it in blogs mentioned when Linux users
> evaluate FreeBSD.
> I've seen it when people design appliances based on FreeBSD, but want the
> device to be
> "familiar" enough for Linux-y devops people to interact with it.
>
> If there are minor things that we can do in FreeBSD to improve the
> out-of-box experience
> of FreeBSD to new users who may be used to Linux or MacOS X, that would be
> great.
> Telling people to change their shell scripts, or manually create symlinks
> to /bin/bash is doable,
> but why not have something in the system do this automatically, so that the
> average end-user does
> not even have to think about it?
>
> If adding an optional knob to the bash port which is OFF by default to do
> this is a no-go,
> would having an optional port like what Brooks Davis mentioned be allowed
> which creates
> the symlink and updates /etc/shells?
>
> --
> Craig
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org"
>

I'd point out that the perl ports have exactly such an option already 
(putting links in /usr/bin, in this case). The CUPS port does too.
-Nathan