From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Sep 14 03:56:50 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43F9330C for ; Sun, 14 Sep 2014 03:56:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vps1.elischer.org (vps1.elischer.org [204.109.63.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "vps1.elischer.org", Issuer "CA Cert Signing Authority" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B139AF21 for ; Sun, 14 Sep 2014 03:56:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jre-mbp.elischer.org (ppp121-45-224-76.lns20.per1.internode.on.net [121.45.224.76]) (authenticated bits=0) by vps1.elischer.org (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id s8E3uj0R066622 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 13 Sep 2014 20:56:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <541511F7.6020003@freebsd.org> Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2014 11:56:39 +0800 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: shells/bash port, add a knob which symlinks to /bin/bash ? References: <541367D1.8090002@FreeBSD.org> <54150E10.5040306@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <54150E10.5040306@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2014 03:56:50 -0000 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-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > >