• Nick Sabalausky (3/3) Jul 04 2009 Can /bin/bash safely be expected to exist on all non-Windows systems tha...
• Adam D. Ruppe (9/12) Jul 04 2009 I know on FreeBSD it is often in /usr/local/bin/bash (if it is installed...
• Nick Sabalausky (13/23) Jul 04 2009 That may work just fine in my case. I'm just using a batch-file (win) an...
• Jacob Carlborg (3/28) Jul 05 2009 #!/usr/bin/env bash
• Andrei Alexandrescu (15/58) Jul 05 2009 env is on all Unix platforms I tried, just sometimes it's in /bin/ and
• Jacob Carlborg (3/6) Jul 05 2009 What to watch out for when writing portable shell scripts:
• Steven Schveighoffer (6/9) Jul 06 2009 /bin/sh will always exist. Usually, it is a symlink to bash, but not

"Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:

Can /bin/bash safely be expected to exist on all non-Windows systems that 
can compile D? Or is there something better for that? Any common 
cross-platform-scripting gotcha's to be aware of? 

"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:

On Sat, Jul 04, 2009 at 04:50:22PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Can /bin/bash safely be expected to exist on all non-Windows systems that 
 can compile D? Or is there something better for that? Any common 
 cross-platform-scripting gotcha's to be aware of? 

I know on FreeBSD it is often in /usr/local/bin/bash (if it is installed at
all), so you can't really rely on it being at /bin/bash.

I don't really have a solution to cover the differences though. I guess
you could write simple, minimal scripts and just use /bin/sh for best
cross platform luck.



-- 
Adam D. Ruppe
http://arsdnet.net

"Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:

"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.5.1246741099.14071.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
 On Sat, Jul 04, 2009 at 04:50:22PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Can /bin/bash safely be expected to exist on all non-Windows systems that
 can compile D? Or is there something better for that? Any common
 cross-platform-scripting gotcha's to be aware of?

 I know on FreeBSD it is often in /usr/local/bin/bash (if it is installed 
 at
 all), so you can't really rely on it being at /bin/bash.

 I don't really have a solution to cover the differences though. I guess
 you could write simple, minimal scripts and just use /bin/sh for best
 cross platform luck.

That may work just fine in my case. I'm just using a batch-file (win) and a 
shell script (non-win) to launch rebuild to compile the real cross-platform, 
umm "script", that's written in D. And even then, only for the cases where 
the included precompiled versions are insufficient, such as on a non-x86 or 
a mac (my only mac isn't current anymore. and it's completely dead.). So it 
is fairly trivial script.

So sh is typically in that location then? I know Unix doesn't really have a 
way (at least to my knowledge) to handle a script needing a particular 
interpreter that could be in different places on different machines without 
requiring the user to make a symlink or something. But I don't really need 
perfect. Good enough is good enough here :) 

Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:

On 7/5/09 6:36 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Adam D. Ruppe"<destructionator gmail.com>  wrote in message
 news:mailman.5.1246741099.14071.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
 On Sat, Jul 04, 2009 at 04:50:22PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Can /bin/bash safely be expected to exist on all non-Windows systems that
 can compile D? Or is there something better for that? Any common
 cross-platform-scripting gotcha's to be aware of?

 I know on FreeBSD it is often in /usr/local/bin/bash (if it is installed
 at
 all), so you can't really rely on it being at /bin/bash.

 I don't really have a solution to cover the differences though. I guess
 you could write simple, minimal scripts and just use /bin/sh for best
 cross platform luck.

 That may work just fine in my case. I'm just using a batch-file (win) and a
 shell script (non-win) to launch rebuild to compile the real cross-platform,
 umm "script", that's written in D. And even then, only for the cases where
 the included precompiled versions are insufficient, such as on a non-x86 or
 a mac (my only mac isn't current anymore. and it's completely dead.). So it
 is fairly trivial script.

 So sh is typically in that location then? I know Unix doesn't really have a
 way (at least to my knowledge) to handle a script needing a particular
 interpreter that could be in different places on different machines without
 requiring the user to make a symlink or something. But I don't really need
 perfect. Good enough is good enough here :)



but that requires env, I don't know if that's any better.

Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:

Jacob Carlborg wrote:
 On 7/5/09 6:36 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Adam D. Ruppe"<destructionator gmail.com>  wrote in message
 news:mailman.5.1246741099.14071.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
 On Sat, Jul 04, 2009 at 04:50:22PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Can /bin/bash safely be expected to exist on all non-Windows systems 
 that
 can compile D? Or is there something better for that? Any common
 cross-platform-scripting gotcha's to be aware of?

 I know on FreeBSD it is often in /usr/local/bin/bash (if it is installed
 at
 all), so you can't really rely on it being at /bin/bash.

 I don't really have a solution to cover the differences though. I guess
 you could write simple, minimal scripts and just use /bin/sh for best
 cross platform luck.

 That may work just fine in my case. I'm just using a batch-file (win) 
 and a
 shell script (non-win) to launch rebuild to compile the real 
 cross-platform,
 umm "script", that's written in D. And even then, only for the cases 
 where
 the included precompiled versions are insufficient, such as on a 
 non-x86 or
 a mac (my only mac isn't current anymore. and it's completely dead.). 
 So it
 is fairly trivial script.

 So sh is typically in that location then? I know Unix doesn't really 
 have a
 way (at least to my knowledge) to handle a script needing a particular
 interpreter that could be in different places on different machines 
 without
 requiring the user to make a symlink or something. But I don't really 
 need
 perfect. Good enough is good enough here :)

 

 
 but that requires env, I don't know if that's any better.

env is on all Unix platforms I tried, just sometimes it's in /bin/ and 
some other times it's in /usr/bin. I know of no portable way to search 
the path and run a program from the shebang on Unix. Second, you can't 
pass options to a program, for example:



won't work because the shell will pass "--chatty -O" as one single 
option to rdmd. I worked around that by requiring --shebang if you want 
to pass multiple parameters from within the shebang line:



Then rdmd detects that the argument "--shebang --chatty -O" starts with 
--shebang and therefore splits the rest and parses them as flags.

Very annoying.

By the way, I recently changed rdmd to... but let me make a different post.


Andrei

Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:

On 7/4/09 10:50 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Can /bin/bash safely be expected to exist on all non-Windows systems that
 can compile D? Or is there something better for that? Any common
 cross-platform-scripting gotcha's to be aware of?

What to watch out for when writing portable shell scripts: 
http://www.linux.com/archive/articles/34658

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:

On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:50:22 -0400, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:

 Can /bin/bash safely be expected to exist on all non-Windows systems that
 can compile D? Or is there something better for that? Any common
 cross-platform-scripting gotcha's to be aware of?

/bin/sh will always exist.  Usually, it is a symlink to bash, but not  
always.  Even if it's not bash, it should generally allow 99% of what you  
want to do with bash.  I wrote shell scripts for busybox's ash (/bin/sh)  
and those scripts ran seamlessly on a full linux system with bash.

-Steve