[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Texmacs-dev] /bin/sh vs. /bin/bash in Ubuntu

From: Andrey G. Grozin
Subject: Re: [Texmacs-dev] /bin/sh vs. /bin/bash in Ubuntu
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 15:09:24 +0700 (NOVST)
User-agent: Alpine 1.10 (LRH 962 2008-03-14)

On Sat, 25 Apr 2009, Joris van der Hoeven wrote:
This /bin/sh issue comes up every now and then; a pain.
In principle, as long as we no not use any bash-specific stuff,
then we probably should stick to /bin/sh.

Andrey, do you remember the previous conclusions on this subject?
Maybe, I don't remember all issues, this was discussed many times. One I remember is 'type -p' vs. 'which'. Initially, I used 'which' in maxima_detect. This was inconvenient for cygwin: it not always has 'which' (I never used cygwin; my understanding (maybe wrong) is that it has some package system, and 'which' is available in some package, but it is not installed by default). 'which' was replaced by 'type -p', which is bash-specific. More recently, 'type -p' was replaced (in many scripts in /usr/libexec/TeXmacs/bin) by 'which', to make these scripts more sh-compatible. Has the cygwin problem disappeared somehow?

In any case, currently ( all scripts in /usr/libexec/TeXmacs/bin use 'which', except tm_mathematica (it still uses 'type -p'). I think it would be good to replace 'type -p' by 'which' in tm_mathematica, for consistency. Though this script is hardly used by anybody: it worked more-or-less well with mathematica-4.*, and the current version is 7, many things don't work anymore :-(

I don't know what other bash-specific features are used in these scripts. Probably, there are some, because there is some breakage on ubuntu. Ubuntu users can investigate what scripts (and what lines in them) don't work in the expected way.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]