Re: shells/bash port, add a knob which symlinks to /bin/bash ?
On 9/13/14, 11:39 AM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: On 09/13/14 11:32, Craig Rodrigues wrote: If adding an optional knob to the bash port which is OFF by default to do this is a no-go, would having an optional port like what Brooks Davis mentioned be allowed which creates the symlink and updates /etc/shells? -- I'd point out that the perl ports have exactly such an option already (putting links in /usr/bin, in this case). The CUPS port does too. -Nathan Should really be a standalone package. -Alfred ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: shells/bash port, add a knob which symlinks to /bin/bash ?
On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Alfred Perlstein bri...@mu.org wrote: On 9/13/14, 11:39 AM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: Should really be a standalone package. It's not exactly the same, but the lang/python2 port for example is a meta-port which creates symlinks such as /usr/local/bin/python2 - python2.7. So the precedent of having a metaport which creates symlinks is there. What folks have been complaining about in this thread is having symlinks in the base system directories such as /bin. My personal feeling is that we should look at this on a case-by-case basis and allow these types of ports, such as for /bin/bash but I'm sure others will disagree. -- Craig ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: shells/bash port, add a knob which symlinks to /bin/bash ?
On 9/14/14, 3:22 PM, Craig Rodrigues wrote: On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Alfred Perlstein bri...@mu.org mailto:bri...@mu.org wrote: On 9/13/14, 11:39 AM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: Should really be a standalone package. It's not exactly the same, but the lang/python2 port for example is a meta-port which creates symlinks such as /usr/local/bin/python2 - python2.7. So the precedent of having a metaport which creates symlinks is there. What folks have been complaining about in this thread is having symlinks in the base system directories such as /bin. Why do you care what people are complaining about? Just make the port. :) My personal feeling is that we should look at this on a case-by-case basis and allow these types of ports, such as for /bin/bash but I'm sure others will disagree. We already allow such ports, for example a bunch of kmods install into /boot/kernel or /boot/modules. There are always exceptions to rules and for good reasons! find . -name pkg-plist | xargs grep -A 3 '^@cwd /$' -- Craig ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: shells/bash port, add a knob which symlinks to /bin/bash ?
On Sep 12, 2014, at 14:38, Bryan Drewery bdrew...@freebsd.org wrote: No (as portmgr). Ports should not be touching the base system like this. Let's NOT go backwards and add a /bin/bash. In fact the /usr/bin/perl one will be removed soon as well. If we can actually eliminate ports touching /usr and / (not including /usr/local and /var) then we gain a very large memory optimization for package building by being able to ro null-mount these to the build jails. There's no reason for bash (and perl) to be exceptions to the 24000 other ports that install to /usr/local/bin. I can think of dozens of other ports that will fall into the same arguments being made here, but it does not mean it is the right thing for FreeBSD. If you want to install the symlink on your system feel free to do it. I install a static bash to /bin/bash on mine and only because I prefer bash shell and want it in / for single-user mode. That's my personal choice though. The proper fix is to fix scripts to be portable and use #! /usr/bin/env bash rather than /bin/bash. We install all packages to PREFIX=/usr/local by default. Why should a bin symlink be an exception? There's no suggestion for symlinking includes or libraries which also hit users often. Hi Bryan, I understand portmgr’s reasoning for removing these knobs as it improves “portability” (builds and runtime won’t depend on broken code), but I see the merits of making a separate package for Linux “compatibility” for the various items that people have brought up (mostly the LDAP issue and the vendor/legacy script portability issue). Plus it makes the barrier for entry lower, and less of a reason for Linux users to complain about how FreeBSD is different from Linux. Adding these as options to the port(s) won’t work for various reasons, two of which came to mind are: 1. People should be able to install packages from FreeBSD.org instead of having to roll their own ports with custom options. 2. It’s best not to build other packages on unportable (/bin/bash) behavior. Thanks! -Garrett PS I don’t agree with Fedora/FreeDesktop’s push to move everything to /usr (I think it’s a wee bit radical, to say the least, and seems like it’s optimizing the wrong thing), but it’s something to keep in mind as this non-portable decision may start working its way into upstream ports: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove . signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: shells/bash port, add a knob which symlinks to /bin/bash ?
On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 08:39:17PM +0100, Dreamcat4 wrote:
Right, well here is another one:
The missing symlink for /etc/ssl/cert.pem
There is no reason it should not be in
${prefix}/etc/ssl/cert.pem
Except that the folder etc/ssl/ only exists in base.
Without this symlink, then SSL certs aren't found by the 'fetch'
command and many significant websites these days can't work without
SSL. For example github.com (there are others).
fetch has been fixed to read the one from localbase first.
regards,
bapt
pgpbciUiZWTKp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: shells/bash port, add a knob which symlinks to /bin/bash ?
Am 12.09.2014 um 23:38 schrieb Bryan Drewery: The proper fix is to fix scripts to be portable and use #! /usr/bin/env bash rather than /bin/bash. Proper portability means scripting for a POSIX sh, and /bin/sh can handle those scripts. In the majority of cases replacing == by = in test or [ commands suffices. We install all packages to PREFIX=/usr/local by default. Why should a bin symlink be an exception? There's no suggestion for symlinking includes or libraries which also hit users often. We'd need something for fsck and thereabouts though... if /usr is on, for instance, an ext2 file system (which is part of the kernel after all), we need the tools early in the boot process, before /usr is there. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: shells/bash port, add a knob which symlinks to /bin/bash ?
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Bryan Drewery bdrew...@freebsd.org wrote: There's no reason for bash (and perl) to be exceptions to the 24000 other ports that install to /usr/local/bin. I can think of dozens of other ports that will fall into the same arguments being made here, but it does not mean it is the right thing for FreeBSD. If you want to install the symlink on your system feel free to do it. I install a static bash to /bin/bash on mine and only because I prefer bash shell and want it in / for single-user mode. That's my personal choice though. The proper fix is to fix scripts to be portable and use #! /usr/bin/env bash rather than /bin/bash. Technically, I agree with you that people should write portable shell scripts, and use #!/usr/bin/env bash rather than #!/bin/bash. Pushing that behavior upstream is not always practical these days, where FreeBSD is in the minority, while Linux and MacOS X are in the vast majority of where people are doing development and learning how to write shell scripts these days. The /bin/bash thing is relatively minor, but I brought it up, because I see it so much. I've seen it in the jobs that I've worked at. I've also seen it when dealing with Google Summer of Code students. I've seen it in blogs mentioned when Linux users evaluate FreeBSD. I've seen it when people design appliances based on FreeBSD, but want the device to be familiar enough for Linux-y devops people to interact with it. If there are minor things that we can do in FreeBSD to improve the out-of-box experience of FreeBSD to new users who may be used to Linux or MacOS X, that would be great. Telling people to change their shell scripts, or manually create symlinks to /bin/bash is doable, but why not have something in the system do this automatically, so that the average end-user does not even have to think about it? If adding an optional knob to the bash port which is OFF by default to do this is a no-go, would having an optional port like what Brooks Davis mentioned be allowed which creates the symlink and updates /etc/shells? -- Craig ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: shells/bash port, add a knob which symlinks to /bin/bash ?
On 09/13/14 11:32, Craig Rodrigues wrote: On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Bryan Drewery bdrew...@freebsd.org wrote: There's no reason for bash (and perl) to be exceptions to the 24000 other ports that install to /usr/local/bin. I can think of dozens of other ports that will fall into the same arguments being made here, but it does not mean it is the right thing for FreeBSD. If you want to install the symlink on your system feel free to do it. I install a static bash to /bin/bash on mine and only because I prefer bash shell and want it in / for single-user mode. That's my personal choice though. The proper fix is to fix scripts to be portable and use #! /usr/bin/env bash rather than /bin/bash. Technically, I agree with you that people should write portable shell scripts, and use #!/usr/bin/env bash rather than #!/bin/bash. Pushing that behavior upstream is not always practical these days, where FreeBSD is in the minority, while Linux and MacOS X are in the vast majority of where people are doing development and learning how to write shell scripts these days. The /bin/bash thing is relatively minor, but I brought it up, because I see it so much. I've seen it in the jobs that I've worked at. I've also seen it when dealing with Google Summer of Code students. I've seen it in blogs mentioned when Linux users evaluate FreeBSD. I've seen it when people design appliances based on FreeBSD, but want the device to be familiar enough for Linux-y devops people to interact with it. If there are minor things that we can do in FreeBSD to improve the out-of-box experience of FreeBSD to new users who may be used to Linux or MacOS X, that would be great. Telling people to change their shell scripts, or manually create symlinks to /bin/bash is doable, but why not have something in the system do this automatically, so that the average end-user does not even have to think about it? If adding an optional knob to the bash port which is OFF by default to do this is a no-go, would having an optional port like what Brooks Davis mentioned be allowed which creates the symlink and updates /etc/shells? -- Craig ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org I'd point out that the perl ports have exactly such an option already (putting links in /usr/bin, in this case). The CUPS port does too. -Nathan ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: shells/bash port, add a knob which symlinks to /bin/bash ?
On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 8:39 PM, Nathan Whitehorn nwhiteh...@freebsd.org wrote: On 09/13/14 11:32, Craig Rodrigues wrote: On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Bryan Drewery bdrew...@freebsd.org wrote: There's no reason for bash (and perl) to be exceptions to the 24000 other ports that install to /usr/local/bin. I can think of dozens of other ports that will fall into the same arguments being made here, but it does not mean it is the right thing for FreeBSD. If you want to install the symlink on your system feel free to do it. I install a static bash to /bin/bash on mine and only because I prefer bash shell and want it in / for single-user mode. That's my personal choice though. The proper fix is to fix scripts to be portable and use #! /usr/bin/env bash rather than /bin/bash. Technically, I agree with you that people should write portable shell scripts, and use #!/usr/bin/env bash rather than #!/bin/bash. Pushing that behavior upstream is not always practical these days, where FreeBSD is in the minority, while Linux and MacOS X are in the vast majority of where people are doing development and learning how to write shell scripts these days. The /bin/bash thing is relatively minor, but I brought it up, because I see it so much. I've seen it in the jobs that I've worked at. I've also seen it when dealing with Google Summer of Code students. I've seen it in blogs mentioned when Linux users evaluate FreeBSD. I've seen it when people design appliances based on FreeBSD, but want the device to be familiar enough for Linux-y devops people to interact with it. If there are minor things that we can do in FreeBSD to improve the out-of-box experience of FreeBSD to new users who may be used to Linux or MacOS X, that would be great. Telling people to change their shell scripts, or manually create symlinks to /bin/bash is doable, but why not have something in the system do this automatically, so that the average end-user does not even have to think about it? If adding an optional knob to the bash port which is OFF by default to do this is a no-go, would having an optional port like what Brooks Davis mentioned be allowed which creates the symlink and updates /etc/shells? -- Craig ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org I'd point out that the perl ports have exactly such an option already (putting links in /usr/bin, in this case). The CUPS port does too. -Nathan Sorry Nathan, reply all is sometimes harder than it should be. Just for the uncomfortable stuff: How about systems where env is not in /usr/bin ? I had that fun episode on an opensolaris-system... Best regards Andreas Nilsson ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: shells/bash port, add a knob which symlinks to /bin/bash ?
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 04:38:25PM -0500, Bryan Drewery wrote: No (as portmgr). Ports should not be touching the base system like this. Let's NOT go backwards and add a /bin/bash. In fact the /usr/bin/perl one will be removed soon as well. This is (for perl) may break many 3rd party scripts. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: shells/bash port, add a knob which symlinks to /bin/bash ?
As a slight distraction from the topic, is this actually possible in general? I'm thinking in particular of ports that install kernel modules. Since LOCALBASE may be (and very often is) a different file system from /, such modules cannot be accessible to loader and so can't be loaded in early boot. This is potentially a problem for wireless driver firmware modules, for example. -Nathan On 09/12/14 14:38, Bryan Drewery wrote: No (as portmgr). Ports should not be touching the base system like this. Let's NOT go backwards and add a /bin/bash. In fact the /usr/bin/perl one will be removed soon as well. If we can actually eliminate ports touching /usr and / (not including /usr/local and /var) then we gain a very large memory optimization for package building by being able to ro null-mount these to the build jails. There's no reason for bash (and perl) to be exceptions to the 24000 other ports that install to /usr/local/bin. I can think of dozens of other ports that will fall into the same arguments being made here, but it does not mean it is the right thing for FreeBSD. If you want to install the symlink on your system feel free to do it. I install a static bash to /bin/bash on mine and only because I prefer bash shell and want it in / for single-user mode. That's my personal choice though. The proper fix is to fix scripts to be portable and use #! /usr/bin/env bash rather than /bin/bash. We install all packages to PREFIX=/usr/local by default. Why should a bin symlink be an exception? There's no suggestion for symlinking includes or libraries which also hit users often. On 9/12/2014 4:12 PM, Craig Rodrigues wrote: Hi, In the last 3 jobs that I have worked at, there have been a mix of Linux machines and FreeBSD machines. When using an NIS or LDAP environment where there is a single login across multiple machines, it is useful to have a single shell setting. Since Linux and MacOS X have /bin/bash as the shell, in order to get the FreeBSD boxes to play in this environment, I have seen admins do the following on FreeBSD setups: ln -s /usr/local/bin/bash /bin/bash or ln /usr/local/bin/bash /bin/bash and then make sure that /etc/shells as: /usr/local/bin/bash /bin/bash Can we add an optional knob (turned off by default) which creates this symlink and updates /etc/shells? This would help with interoperability of FreeBSD hosts in environments mixed with Linux and MacOS X. -- Craig ___ freebsd-po...@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: shells/bash port, add a knob which symlinks to /bin/bash ?
Right, well here is another one:
The missing symlink for /etc/ssl/cert.pem
There is no reason it should not be in
${prefix}/etc/ssl/cert.pem
Except that the folder etc/ssl/ only exists in base.
Without this symlink, then SSL certs aren't found by the 'fetch'
command and many significant websites these days can't work without
SSL. For example github.com (there are others).
On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 7:32 PM, Craig Rodrigues rodr...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Bryan Drewery bdrew...@freebsd.org wrote:
There's no reason for bash (and perl) to be exceptions to the 24000
other ports that install to /usr/local/bin. I can think of dozens of
other ports that will fall into the same arguments being made here, but
it does not mean it is the right thing for FreeBSD.
If you want to install the symlink on your system feel free to do it. I
install a static bash to /bin/bash on mine and only because I prefer
bash shell and want it in / for single-user mode. That's my personal
choice though.
The proper fix is to fix scripts to be portable and use #! /usr/bin/env
bash rather than /bin/bash.
Technically, I agree with you that people should write portable shell
scripts,
and use #!/usr/bin/env bash rather than #!/bin/bash.
Pushing that behavior upstream is not always practical these days, where
FreeBSD is in the minority, while Linux and MacOS X are in the vast
majority of where
people are doing development and learning how to write shell scripts these
days.
The /bin/bash thing is relatively minor, but I brought it up, because I see
it so much.
I've seen it in the jobs that I've worked at. I've also seen it when
dealing with Google
Summer of Code students. I've seen it in blogs mentioned when Linux users
evaluate FreeBSD.
I've seen it when people design appliances based on FreeBSD, but want the
device to be
familiar enough for Linux-y devops people to interact with it.
If there are minor things that we can do in FreeBSD to improve the
out-of-box experience
of FreeBSD to new users who may be used to Linux or MacOS X, that would be
great.
Telling people to change their shell scripts, or manually create symlinks
to /bin/bash is doable,
but why not have something in the system do this automatically, so that the
average end-user does
not even have to think about it?
If adding an optional knob to the bash port which is OFF by default to do
this is a no-go,
would having an optional port like what Brooks Davis mentioned be allowed
which creates
the symlink and updates /etc/shells?
--
Craig
___
freebsd-po...@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: shells/bash port, add a knob which symlinks to /bin/bash ?
On 9/14/14, 2:32 AM, Craig Rodrigues wrote: Technically, I agree with you that people should write portable shell scripts, and use #!/usr/bin/env bash rather than #!/bin/bash. Pushing that behavior upstream is not always practical these days, where FreeBSD is in the minority, while Linux and MacOS X are in the vast majority of where people are doing development and learning how to write shell scripts these days. I agree with Craig here. we can keep our code pure but the standard shell these days for everyone except us is /bin/bash. There is nothing wrong with FreeSBD deciding that an industry standard should be adopted.. While I don't like it when people code stuff at work in bash instead of sh, I have to admit it has a lot of advantages, and I can't really stop them.. It's getting more and more common so to some extent we should probably hide our pride a bit and look at bash (and maybe vim) and giving them better standard support. mailing the symlink is a really small thing. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: shells/bash port, add a knob which symlinks to /bin/bash ?
On 9/14/14, 11:40 AM, Julian Elischer wrote: On 9/14/14, 2:32 AM, Craig Rodrigues wrote: Technically, I agree with you that people should write portable shell scripts, and use #!/usr/bin/env bash rather than #!/bin/bash. Pushing that behavior upstream is not always practical these days, where FreeBSD is in the minority, while Linux and MacOS X are in the vast majority of where people are doing development and learning how to write shell scripts these days. I agree with Craig here. we can keep our code pure but the standard shell these days for everyone except us is /bin/bash. There is nothing wrong with FreeSBD deciding that an industry standard should be adopted.. While I don't like it when people code stuff at work in bash instead of sh, I have to admit it has a lot of advantages, and I can't really stop them.. It's getting more and more common so to some extent we should probably hide our pride a bit and look at bash (and maybe vim) and giving them better standard support. mailing the symlink is a really small thing. err.. making also I would like to RE-propose some suggestions that I've been making now for nearly 15 years. That we probably should have (at least) two classes of ports. in the current system we have base and ports I think we need more granularity than that. at a minimum we should have Base, Base ports, and extended ports. where base ports Must work, and a failure would be enough to hold up a release. base might contain extra hooks for base ports stuff. Stuff in base-ports would include sendmail, bind, Xorg, maybe appache, openldap, sasl, possibly even the compilers. Base ports get special priviledges, and responsibilities. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: shells/bash port, add a knob which symlinks to /bin/bash ?
No (as portmgr). Ports should not be touching the base system like this. Let's NOT go backwards and add a /bin/bash. In fact the /usr/bin/perl one will be removed soon as well. If we can actually eliminate ports touching /usr and / (not including /usr/local and /var) then we gain a very large memory optimization for package building by being able to ro null-mount these to the build jails. There's no reason for bash (and perl) to be exceptions to the 24000 other ports that install to /usr/local/bin. I can think of dozens of other ports that will fall into the same arguments being made here, but it does not mean it is the right thing for FreeBSD. If you want to install the symlink on your system feel free to do it. I install a static bash to /bin/bash on mine and only because I prefer bash shell and want it in / for single-user mode. That's my personal choice though. The proper fix is to fix scripts to be portable and use #! /usr/bin/env bash rather than /bin/bash. We install all packages to PREFIX=/usr/local by default. Why should a bin symlink be an exception? There's no suggestion for symlinking includes or libraries which also hit users often. On 9/12/2014 4:12 PM, Craig Rodrigues wrote: Hi, In the last 3 jobs that I have worked at, there have been a mix of Linux machines and FreeBSD machines. When using an NIS or LDAP environment where there is a single login across multiple machines, it is useful to have a single shell setting. Since Linux and MacOS X have /bin/bash as the shell, in order to get the FreeBSD boxes to play in this environment, I have seen admins do the following on FreeBSD setups: ln -s /usr/local/bin/bash /bin/bash or ln /usr/local/bin/bash /bin/bash and then make sure that /etc/shells as: /usr/local/bin/bash /bin/bash Can we add an optional knob (turned off by default) which creates this symlink and updates /etc/shells? This would help with interoperability of FreeBSD hosts in environments mixed with Linux and MacOS X. -- Craig ___ freebsd-po...@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org -- Regards, Bryan Drewery signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: shells/bash port, add a knob which symlinks to /bin/bash ?
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 02:12:45PM -0700, Craig Rodrigues wrote: Hi, In the last 3 jobs that I have worked at, there have been a mix of Linux machines and FreeBSD machines. When using an NIS or LDAP environment where there is a single login across multiple machines, it is useful to have a single shell setting. Since Linux and MacOS X have /bin/bash as the shell, in order to get the FreeBSD boxes to play in this environment, I have seen admins do the following on FreeBSD setups: ln -s /usr/local/bin/bash /bin/bash or ln /usr/local/bin/bash /bin/bash and then make sure that /etc/shells as: /usr/local/bin/bash /bin/bash Can we add an optional knob (turned off by default) which creates this symlink and updates /etc/shells? This would help with interoperability of FreeBSD hosts in environments mixed with Linux and MacOS X. Please no, no and no! We are fighting for a very long time to prevent the ports to pollute base. We have added the shebangfix USES to be able to catch with up with cleanup this properly as well as a qa test to discover it automatically. no interpreters at all have a symlink in base but perl and this one is going to be removed. If you want interoperability just use /usr/bin/env bash as a shebang. Btw you cannot get interoprability with OS-X in there because the bash they do provide is the last GPL-2 recent bash have many incompatiblities with this old version. regards, Bapt pgpQHo4ikWIyu.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: shells/bash port, add a knob which symlinks to /bin/bash ?
If you want interoperability just use /usr/bin/env bash as a shebang. That doesn't work for this use case -- the user shell coming from LDAP -- but I agree that the port shouldn't be modifying /usr/bin. It's easy enough to add the symlink manually after installing the port if you're in this situation, or there may be a way to configure the LDAP module to map /bin/bash to /usr/local/bin/bash (I haven't looked to see what is supported here). Anton ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
RE: shells/bash port, add a knob which symlinks to /bin/bash ?
On Fri, 12 Sep 2014, Rang, Anton wrote: If you want interoperability just use /usr/bin/env bash as a shebang. That doesn't work for this use case -- the user shell coming from LDAP -- but I agree that the port shouldn't be modifying /usr/bin. Here at MIT, where our Athena environment has a long history of providing a consistent experience across many different platforms, we ended up limiting the login shells a user could select, to a whitelist we provide (/bin/sh, /usr/athena/bin/bash, and /usr/athena/bin/tcsh). (The latter two are now symlinks to the normal system shells, but they used to be custom binaries.) Some people did not like being so restricted, and set their login shell to /bin/sh, with logic in their dotfiles to re-exec a different shell depending on the current runtime environment. -Ben ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: shells/bash port, add a knob which symlinks to /bin/bash ?
The correct thing is to make a port/pkg that installs the symlink and /etc/shells this for the user. There is no need for changes to 'base' nor do we need a change to the system port. -Alfred On 9/12/14 2:40 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 02:12:45PM -0700, Craig Rodrigues wrote: Hi, In the last 3 jobs that I have worked at, there have been a mix of Linux machines and FreeBSD machines. When using an NIS or LDAP environment where there is a single login across multiple machines, it is useful to have a single shell setting. Since Linux and MacOS X have /bin/bash as the shell, in order to get the FreeBSD boxes to play in this environment, I have seen admins do the following on FreeBSD setups: ln -s /usr/local/bin/bash /bin/bash or ln /usr/local/bin/bash /bin/bash and then make sure that /etc/shells as: /usr/local/bin/bash /bin/bash Can we add an optional knob (turned off by default) which creates this symlink and updates /etc/shells? This would help with interoperability of FreeBSD hosts in environments mixed with Linux and MacOS X. Please no, no and no! We are fighting for a very long time to prevent the ports to pollute base. We have added the shebangfix USES to be able to catch with up with cleanup this properly as well as a qa test to discover it automatically. no interpreters at all have a symlink in base but perl and this one is going to be removed. If you want interoperability just use /usr/bin/env bash as a shebang. Btw you cannot get interoprability with OS-X in there because the bash they do provide is the last GPL-2 recent bash have many incompatiblities with this old version. regards, Bapt ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: shells/bash port, add a knob which symlinks to /bin/bash ?
On Sep 12, 2014, at 14:53, Benjamin Kaduk ka...@mit.edu wrote: On Fri, 12 Sep 2014, Rang, Anton wrote: If you want interoperability just use /usr/bin/env bash as a shebang. That doesn't work for this use case -- the user shell coming from LDAP -- but I agree that the port shouldn't be modifying /usr/bin. Here at MIT, where our Athena environment has a long history of providing a consistent experience across many different platforms, we ended up limiting the login shells a user could select, to a whitelist we provide (/bin/sh, /usr/athena/bin/bash, and /usr/athena/bin/tcsh). (The latter two are now symlinks to the normal system shells, but they used to be custom binaries.) Some people did not like being so restricted, and set their login shell to /bin/sh, with logic in their dotfiles to re-exec a different shell depending on the current runtime environment. +1 user rc files (not that it would fix this particular case...): - https://github.com/yaneurabeya/scratch/blob/master/bayonetta/home/ngie/dot.bashrc - https://github.com/yaneurabeya/scratch/blob/master/bayonetta/home/ngie/dot.shrc-local Cheers, -Garrett signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
RE: shells/bash port, add a knob which symlinks to /bin/bash ?
On Fri, 12 Sep 2014, Rang, Anton wrote: If you want interoperability just use /usr/bin/env bash as a shebang. That doesn't work for this use case -- the user shell coming from LDAP -- but I agree that the port shouldn't be modifying /usr/bin. It's easy enough to add the symlink manually after installing the port if you're in this situation, or there may be a way to configure the LDAP module to map /bin/bash to /usr/local/bin/bash (I haven't looked to see what is supported here). We have used LDAP on Solaris for years, and have mixed environments of Solaris, Linux, and FreeBSD. We use /usr/local/bin/bash in LDAP for shells, then either link that to the system /bin/bash or install more up-to-date bash in /usr/local/bin. This way you can always install a more up-to-date shell in /usr/local/bin without changing the base OS - you don't want base OS shell scripts to break by updating to a newer shell. -- DE ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: shells/bash port, add a knob which symlinks to /bin/bash ?
On Sep 12, 2014, at 2:40 PM, Baptiste Daroussin b...@freebsd.org wrote: If you want interoperability just use /usr/bin/env bash as a shebang. Btw you cannot get interoprability with OS-X in there because the bash they do provide is the last GPL-2 recent bash have many incompatiblities with this old version. The concern is not with shell scripts, it's with the contents of the pw_shell field in 'struct passwd'. I run into this all the time, too, but with ksh. In my case I just cp a static-linked version of whatever ksh variant I happened to build into /bin/ksh and call it a day. It's not like the shell source code is changing every other week, even for bash. --lyndon signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: shells/bash port, add a knob which symlinks to /bin/bash ?
Hi, I could live with this solution of additional port outside of the main bash port, which creates the symlink and updates /etc/shells. One other thing I am seeing is that many, many shell scripts are written assuming #!/bin/bash. Forcing all upstream script writers to switch to #!/usr/bin/env bash, or to convert their scripts to #!/bin/sh and remove all bash-specific behaviors, is getting harder and harder, since many people are exposed to MacOS X and Linux on desktops. -- Craig On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Alfred Perlstein bri...@mu.org wrote: The correct thing is to make a port/pkg that installs the symlink and /etc/shells this for the user. There is no need for changes to 'base' nor do we need a change to the system port. -Alfred On 9/12/14 2:40 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 02:12:45PM -0700, Craig Rodrigues wrote: Hi, In the last 3 jobs that I have worked at, there have been a mix of Linux machines and FreeBSD machines. When using an NIS or LDAP environment where there is a single login across multiple machines, it is useful to have a single shell setting. Since Linux and MacOS X have /bin/bash as the shell, in order to get the FreeBSD boxes to play in this environment, I have seen admins do the following on FreeBSD setups: ln -s /usr/local/bin/bash /bin/bash or ln /usr/local/bin/bash /bin/bash and then make sure that /etc/shells as: /usr/local/bin/bash /bin/bash Can we add an optional knob (turned off by default) which creates this symlink and updates /etc/shells? This would help with interoperability of FreeBSD hosts in environments mixed with Linux and MacOS X. Please no, no and no! We are fighting for a very long time to prevent the ports to pollute base. We have added the shebangfix USES to be able to catch with up with cleanup this properly as well as a qa test to discover it automatically. no interpreters at all have a symlink in base but perl and this one is going to be removed. If you want interoperability just use /usr/bin/env bash as a shebang. Btw you cannot get interoprability with OS-X in there because the bash they do provide is the last GPL-2 recent bash have many incompatiblities with this old version. regards, Bapt ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: shells/bash port, add a knob which symlinks to /bin/bash ?
On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 2:23 AM, Craig Rodrigues rodr...@freebsd.org wrote: Hi, I could live with this solution of additional port outside of the main bash port, which creates the symlink and updates /etc/shells. One other thing I am seeing is that many, many shell scripts are written assuming #!/bin/bash. Forcing all upstream script writers to switch to #!/usr/bin/env bash, or to convert their scripts to #!/bin/sh and remove all bash-specific behaviors, is getting harder and harder, since many people are exposed to MacOS X and Linux on desktops. -- Craig On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Alfred Perlstein bri...@mu.org wrote: The correct thing is to make a port/pkg that installs the symlink and /etc/shells this for the user. There is no need for changes to 'base' nor do we need a change to the system port. -Alfred On 9/12/14 2:40 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 02:12:45PM -0700, Craig Rodrigues wrote: Hi, In the last 3 jobs that I have worked at, there have been a mix of Linux machines and FreeBSD machines. When using an NIS or LDAP environment where there is a single login across multiple machines, it is useful to have a single shell setting. Since Linux and MacOS X have /bin/bash as the shell, in order to get the FreeBSD boxes to play in this environment, I have seen admins do the following on FreeBSD setups: ln -s /usr/local/bin/bash /bin/bash or ln /usr/local/bin/bash /bin/bash and then make sure that /etc/shells as: /usr/local/bin/bash /bin/bash Can we add an optional knob (turned off by default) which creates this symlink and updates /etc/shells? This would help with interoperability of FreeBSD hosts in environments mixed with Linux and MacOS X. Please no, no and no! We are fighting for a very long time to prevent the ports to pollute base. We have added the shebangfix USES to be able to catch with up with cleanup this properly as well as a qa test to discover it automatically. no interpreters at all have a symlink in base but perl and this one is going to be removed. If you want interoperability just use /usr/bin/env bash as a shebang. Btw you cannot get interoprability with OS-X in there because the bash they do provide is the last GPL-2 recent bash have many incompatiblities with this old version. regards, Bapt Looks like variant symlink is may be useful for solving this problem and it is not cluttered base https://wiki.freebsd.org/200808DevSummit?action=AttachFiledo=gettarget=variant-symlinks-for-freebsd.pdf ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: shells/bash port, add a knob which symlinks to /bin/bash ?
On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 02:33:58AM +0400, Subbsd wrote: On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 2:23 AM, Craig Rodrigues rodr...@freebsd.org wrote: Hi, I could live with this solution of additional port outside of the main bash port, which creates the symlink and updates /etc/shells. This is the approach I took at my previous employer. It's simple, works with packages, and people who hate adding things to /bin can avoid doing so. Looks like variant symlink is may be useful for solving this problem and it is not cluttered base https://wiki.freebsd.org/200808DevSummit?action=AttachFiledo=gettarget=variant-symlinks-for-freebsd.pdf As the person who ported variant symlinks to FreeBSD I can't image how they could be useful here. If you need a /bin/bash you need to put a file system object there (or I supposed hack namei). Variant symlinks only allow files to point to different things in different contexts. -- Brooks pgpwRGL3Gwnqy.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: shells/bash port, add a knob which symlinks to /bin/bash ?
On Sep 12, 2014, at 3:23 PM, Craig Rodrigues rodr...@freebsd.org wrote: Forcing all upstream script writers to switch to #!/usr/bin/env bash, or to convert their scripts to #!/bin/sh and remove all bash-specific behaviors, is getting harder and harder, since many people are exposed to MacOS X and Linux on desktops. Given the rigid nature of shebangs to begin with, it's really not that hard to write a sed command that will capture all instances of '#!.../bash[ foo]' and wire in an appropriate value of '...'. In fact, this case is a ripe candidate for a bsd.port.mk command macro. --lyndon signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: shells/bash port, add a knob which symlinks to /bin/bash ?
On 9/12/2014 5:45 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: On Sep 12, 2014, at 3:23 PM, Craig Rodrigues rodr...@freebsd.org wrote: Forcing all upstream script writers to switch to #!/usr/bin/env bash, or to convert their scripts to #!/bin/sh and remove all bash-specific behaviors, is getting harder and harder, since many people are exposed to MacOS X and Linux on desktops. Given the rigid nature of shebangs to begin with, it's really not that hard to write a sed command that will capture all instances of '#!.../bash[ foo]' and wire in an appropriate value of '...'. In fact, this case is a ripe candidate for a bsd.port.mk command macro. --lyndon There already is one and ports requires using it! -- Regards, Bryan Drewery signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: shells/bash port, add a knob which symlinks to /bin/bash ?
On Sep 12, 2014, at 3:55 PM, Bryan Drewery bdrew...@freebsd.org wrote: There already is one and ports requires using it! Doh! signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: shells/bash port, add a knob which symlinks to /bin/bash ?
On 9/12/14 3:23 PM, Craig Rodrigues wrote: Hi, I could live with this solution of additional port outside of the main bash port, which creates the symlink and updates /etc/shells. One other thing I am seeing is that many, many shell scripts are written assuming #!/bin/bash. Forcing all upstream script writers to switch to #!/usr/bin/env bash, or to convert their scripts to #!/bin/sh and remove all bash-specific behaviors, is getting harder and harder, since many people are exposed to MacOS X and Linux on desktops. Lol, or we could hack the image activator. :) -Alfred ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
