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
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
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
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
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
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 [
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
29 matches
Mail list logo
