3 ms·
No no no, I'm not saying it's testing a shell script, I'm talking about requiring bash for a script that literally says: #!/usr/local/bin/bash prog_name
by silentbicycle 17y ago
No no no, I'm not saying it's testing a shell script, I'm talking about requiring bash for a script that literally says:
#!/usr/local/bin/bash
prog_name some_argument
Or, worse yet, programs that exec a command by using bash internally.
- prodigal_erik 17y agoWell ... maybe using a shell to run a command worked differently in 1971. There's $IFS ... job control ... Okay, yeah, there has never been a shell on which that wouldn't work. WTF bonus points for requring /usr/local/bin, which is almost certainly not where the OS maintainers package it.
- nailer 17y agoThe argument could be a filename. The filename could have a space in it. So yes, I'd use a shell that has $@ rather than $*, a settable IFS, etc.