On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:45:52AM -0800, Daniel Howard wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 2:41 AM, Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 12:22:11AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [...]
> >> > A statically-linked version of bash would waste significant amounts
> >>
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 2:41 AM, Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 12:22:11AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
>> > A statically-linked version of bash would waste significant amounts
>> > of memory, while a dynamically-linked/shared version would ease that
>
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 09:44:28 +0100
Ruben de Groot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>Well, the link is created automatically by the port, so you should
>never have had to modify any 'shebang'
>
># ls -l `which perl`
>lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 24 Nov 27 2007 /usr/bin/perl ->
>/usr/local/bin/per
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 12:22:11AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > 3) You can build bash statically; make WITH_STATIC_BASH=true. I do
> > not know the true reason why the port is not built statically by
> > default, but I can give you a damn good reason why it shouldn't be:
> > complete and to
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:20:26PM +0100, Polytropon typed:
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 11:49:35 -0800 (PST), GESBBB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > By the way, this also works with Perl as you no doubt know. I
> > cannot count how many times I have installed a Perl script and
> > then had to modify th
> > > > ... Why doesn't FreeBSD ship bash and other shells besides
> > > > the `sh' linked statically is beyond me. It wouldn't break
> > > > ports, would it?
> > >
> > > It does break ports. Very, very badly. I know because I've
> > > personally attempted replacing /bin/sh with bash as a "I hav
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 10:36:24PM -0500, Dan wrote:
> Jeremy Chadwick([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2008.11.15 18:32:39 -0800:
> > > Problem solved. Why doesn't FreeBSD ship bash and other shells besides
> > > the `sh' linked statically is beyond me. It wouldn't break ports, would
> > > it?
> >
> > It does
Jeremy Chadwick([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2008.11.15 18:32:39 -0800:
> > Problem solved. Why doesn't FreeBSD ship bash and other shells besides
> > the `sh' linked statically is beyond me. It wouldn't break ports, would
> > it?
>
> It does break ports. Very, very badly. I know because I've personally
>
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 01:19:57AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > isn't the "main reason" because other shells may reside on a filesystem
> > which isn't necessarily mounted in maintenance/single user mode? Or,
> > libraries
> > for the same?
> > --
> > Jim Pazarena [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> J
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 01:19:57 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Why doesn't FreeBSD ship bash and other shells besides
> the `sh' linked statically is beyond me. It wouldn't break ports, would
> it?
I can't speak for FreeBSD's developers, but I think it's a primary
philosophy to provide only a set
> isn't the "main reason" because other shells may reside on a filesystem
> which isn't necessarily mounted in maintenance/single user mode? Or, libraries
> for the same?
> --
> Jim Pazarena [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Just link the shell of your choice statically and put it somewhere in /.
Problem solved
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 11:49:35 -0800 (PST), GESBBB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The point is that I would want it to work seamlessly between
> different flavors of *nix and FBSD. Since there seems to be
> a lack of consistency as to where 'Bash' is installed on
> different OSs, I find that using the
> From: Chad Perrin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 02:14:07PM -0500, Jerry wrote:
> >
> > I usually just use:
> >
> > #!/usr/bin/env bash
> >
> > It seems to work on both Linux and FBSD.
>
> That does work -- as long as you have bash installed. How portable do
> you want your sc
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 02:14:07PM -0500, Jerry wrote:
>
> I usually just use:
>
> #!/usr/bin/env bash
>
> It seems to work on both Linux and FBSD.
That does work -- as long as you have bash installed. How portable do
you want your script to be?
--
Chad Perrin [ content licensed PDL: http://
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 08:06:16 +0100
Polytropon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Especially in Linux, it's common to prefix scripts with #!/bin/bash
>which won't work in FreeBSD, because it's #/usr/local/bin/bash there.
>Linux has no problem running #!/bin/sh scripts because there's a
>symlink /bin/sh ->
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:13:02 -0500, Jerry McAllister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Probably is the main reason, though another is that some things
> may be written assuming a particular shell. Not a good practice,
> but happens.
Especially in Linux, it's common to prefix scripts with #!/bin/bash
w
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 04:13:54PM -0800, Jim Pazarena wrote:
> Glen Barber wrote:
> >On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Pieter Donche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >>FreeBSD 7.0 comes with the user root with start up shell /bin/csh
> >>As normal user I use bash (/usr/local/bin/bash installed)
>
On Tuesday 11 November 2008 06:38:54 Polytropon wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 16:13:54 -0800, Jim Pazarena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > isn't the "main reason" because other shells may reside on a filesystem
> > which isn't necessarily mounted in maintenance/single user mode? Or,
> > libraries fo
On Tuesday 11 November 2008 00:19:32 Daniel Howard wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 1:46 PM, Pieter Donche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > FreeBSD 7.0 comes with the user root with start up shell /bin/csh
> > As normal user I use bash (/usr/local/bin/bash installed)
> > I would prefer to have bash
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 16:13:54 -0800, Jim Pazarena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Glen Barber wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Pieter Donche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> FreeBSD 7.0 comes with the user root with start up shell /bin/csh
> >> As normal user I use bash (/usr/local/bin/bash i
Glen Barber wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Pieter Donche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
FreeBSD 7.0 comes with the user root with start up shell /bin/csh
As normal user I use bash (/usr/local/bin/bash installed)
I would prefer to have bash also when working as root (su).
It is never recom
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Pieter Donche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FreeBSD 7.0 comes with the user root with start up shell /bin/csh
> As normal user I use bash (/usr/local/bin/bash installed)
> I would prefer to have bash also when working as root (su).
> Of course I can do
> # bash
> [ro
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 1:46 PM, Pieter Donche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FreeBSD 7.0 comes with the user root with start up shell /bin/csh
> As normal user I use bash (/usr/local/bin/bash installed)
> I would prefer to have bash also when working as root (su).
> Of course I can do
> # bash
> [ro
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:46:57 +0100 (CET)
Pieter Donche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I could change the startup shell in /etc/passwd, but would that be a
> wise thing to do or not?
>
we use zsh, but have left the root shell the way it is. if something
goes wrong with zsh (or whatever), then it may
FreeBSD 7.0 comes with the user root with start up shell /bin/csh
As normal user I use bash (/usr/local/bin/bash installed)
I would prefer to have bash also when working as root (su).
Of course I can do
# bash
[root ~]#
or I could change the startup shell in /etc/passwd, but would that be a wise
25 matches
Mail list logo
