On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 8:39 PM, Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn_at_freebsd.org> wrote: > 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 > > Sorry Nathan, reply all is sometimes harder than it should be. Just for the uncomfortable stuff: How about systems where env is not in /usr/bin ? I had that fun episode on an opensolaris-system... Best regards Andreas NilssonReceived on Sat Sep 13 2014 - 17:42:31 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:52 UTC