On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 01:55:43PM -0600, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > > On 28 February 2015 at 19:34, Ze Loff wrote: > | > | Hi > | > | Can #!/bin/bash be replaced by something more portable (e.g. #!/bin/sh) > | on the configure script? Since I don't think that there are any > | bash-isms on the configure script, and that most UNIX-like OS have > | either some version of the Bourne Shell or link /bin/sh to a compatible > | shell (e.g. OS X hardlinks /bin/sh to /bin/bash), I believe switching to > | #!/bin/sh would improve portability. > | > | (In my case, installation of RcppArmadillo failed on OpenBSD since I > | don't have bash installed, but it installed fine from source after > | changing to #!/bin/sh) > > That is rather unlikely as I explained here > > https://github.com/RcppCore/RcppArmadillo/pull/35 > > when rejecting that PR. Which came unannounced and undiscussed, which > is generally a bad idea; always preferable to file an issue ticket > fist, or discuss here as you did.
Sorry for not noticing this first and (thus) for asking a (somewhat) already answered question. > > Changing this creates extra work for me as I need to clean the shell > script of things bash has for free. I happen to like bash as a basic > shell. If I save you the trouble of cleaning the script, would you consider it? > If your system is large enough to have room for R and extra packages, > I'd argue that it should have room for bash too: per the respective > Debian/Ubuntu packages size, bash is actually smaller than > RcppArmadillo. And if you really can't then you can always locally > patch the tarball. It's not a matter of space, its first of all a matter of principle (installing a new shell interpreter because of a 19 lines long configure script on an R package, really?), second a matter of improving portability (and I have seen by now I am hardly the first to come up with this problem) and third (although hardly) a matter of security (I could live without having to worry about the security holes in another shell interpreter). Also, on github's issue #15 you mention "side-effects with other CRAN installations". Does this mean that there is something about CRAN that mandates using bash? In a nutshell, if using bash its just a matter of convenience or it not being worth the trouble of rewriting the script -- and please don't take this the wrong way, I deeply respect your right to prefer bash and having more useful things do to with your time than fixing this -- I'll be glad to take that work off your hands. If there are unavoidable 'technical' issues with other shell interpreters that make bash a strict requirement, I'll glady drop the issue and go back to patching. All the best Zé > At some point this test will go away and we'll just assume a good > enough LAPACK. > > Dirk > > -- > http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org _______________________________________________ Rcpp-devel mailing list Rcpp-devel@lists.r-forge.r-project.org https://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rcpp-devel
