4 ms·
Why not using /bin/sh? Didn't saw a bash specific tool (except the function syntax which is easy to convert). And if you really want to use bash, please use #!/
by sarnowski 14y ago
Why not using /bin/sh? Didn't saw a bash specific tool (except the function syntax which is easy to convert). And if you really want to use bash, please use #!/usr/bin/env bash so that it is more compatible.
- Zr40 14y agoWhat kind of environments contain bash in a different location than /bin/bash, and why is it done that way?
- Presence 14y agoFreeBSD users have bash added in and so is located at /usr/local/bin/bash
- sarnowski 14y agoCorrect, in my case its OpenBSD which stores all "third-party" packages in /usr/local
- napum 14y agoSome systems use /bin and /sbin as directories containing binaries capable of being used in single-user mode (where only / is mounted), meaning a pretty bare experience. root's shell would probably not be bash in this case and bash would probably be optional/a package and would be installed elsewhere.
- DeadButDreaming 14y agoFreeBSD for example does not have bash installed by default since bash is not part of FreeBSD operating system and when it is installed (using ports or packages) it's installed into /usr/local where all other 3rd party software is installed.
- avleenvig 14y agoIt's likely I'll want to do some more complex stuff in bash, rather than pure sh. My preferred shell is zsh but of the more advanced shells, bash is the most prevalent. I've pushed the change to use /usr/bin/env bash :-)
- Shish2k 14y agoApart from when you're on red hat or a derived distro, where the command would need to be "#!/bin/env bash"...
- michaelcampbell 14y ago> please use #!/usr/bin/env bash so that it is more compatible. Presuming env is in /usr/bin, thus obviating the compatible argument somewhat.