Re: [Libreoffice] OpenBSD patch #1

In my opinion people should only write scripts for posix shells, but that'd be a huge development
i guess, so just using #!/usr/bin/env bash is fine, and make bash as a dependency if it is not 
already.

On (2010-10-28 01:13), Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> Should we change all the shell scripts that use bashisms on the "upper" level (from the "build" 
> repo) to start with #!/usr/bin/env bash ? Is that then (finally) a good and reliable solution to 
> the problem whether to use bash or not, and where bash is in case we do want to use it? Or is 
> there some system on which env is not in /usr/bin ? Or does it annoy somebody to have l shell 
> scripts first exec env and then bash, with a (very slight) slowdown?
>
> Presumably we do require bash to be available in PATH (the "inner" build mechanism already does 
> that as far as I know), and can continue doing that. But what we cannot rely on is that bash 
> would be at /bin/bash, and even less that /bin/sh would be bash.
>
> A somewhat related issue is, can we require that the interactive shell used by the developer is a 
> Bourne-style shell? Should we continue to generate the *Env.Set scriptlet for csh or is just the 
> *Env.Set.sh one for Bourne-style shells enough? Do *BSD-based developers often use some csh-style 
> shell as their interactive shell? At least on Linux I assume it is very rare.
>
> --tml