On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 11:27 PM Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 09:49:13AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > This is a question to Patrick, but what makes it bad to assume > > "bash" is in "/bin" when it is OK to assume that "env" is always in > > "/usr/bin"? > > My own bias. I know of systems without "/bin/bash" (NixOS), but I don't > know of any without "/usr/bin/env". But you're right, "/usr/bin/env" is > not part of POSIX and thus not really portable, either. > > Ultimately I don't think there is any way to write the shebang so that > it is fully POSIX compliant. So I'd rather go with the option which is > supported on more systems, which is to the best of my knowlede env(1). The various BSDs mostly stick bash in /usr/local/bin; some versions of macOS did not have a /bin/bash either, as I recall, though my current mac-laptop does. In any case, #! /usr/bin/env <program> is pretty darn common; it's found in a lot of Python scripts, for instance. It works well on old SunOS, on the various BSDs, on macOS, and on Linux, provided of course that the given <program> is installed at all. The *most* portable method is generally to use only POSIX /bin/sh constructs, of course. :-) Chris
