Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Asgeir Storesund Nilsen <asgeir@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> I absolutely agree on the idea of using pure POSIX, but in reality I guess >> most of both developer and user base are using (GNU/)Linux and thus an >> environment where /bin/sh is in fact Bash? The various BSDs have shells that are not bash, but which are believed to be fully POSIX-compliant. Putting #!/bin/bash in scripts is nonportable and just creates work for packagers to undo this. > For example, dash is a much lighter alternative than bash, and groks POSIX > fine. I believe that some GNU/Linux distributions have a /bin/sh that is not bash. Plus there is the /bin/sh on BSD, which is vastly smaller even if one counts libedit: text data bss dec hex filename 109602 1192 5836 116630 1c796 /bin/sh text data bss dec hex filename 96523 4248 7488 108259 1a6e3 /lib/libedit.so.2.11 text data bss dec hex filename 716381 18328 11880 746589 b645d /usr/pkg/bin/bash > I think a safer assumption is that /bin/sh is POSIX, and we make sure that > the builder can countermand it with SHELL_PATH; as platforms whose /bin/sh > is _not_ POSIX does not have to have bash as /bin/bash but somewhere else > (e.g. /usr/local/bin/bash). Agreed. The current sources work well on NetBSD w.r.t. sh usage.
Attachment:
pgpU8JSqzMlJ9.pgp
Description: PGP signature