8 ms·
But if I write the script for a bunch of RHEL servers then OS X and brew are irrelevant, and the full path is better (IMHO). It's the 'always use env..' I objec
by jbrnh 7y ago
But if I write the script for a bunch of RHEL servers then OS X and brew are irrelevant, and the full path is better (IMHO). It's the 'always use env..' I object to.
- moviuro 7y agoIt's RHEL... today. `/usr/bin/env` is a POSIX standard. Maybe one day, RHEL will put bash in /usr/local/bin. Or maybe you'll switch to FreeBSD one day, and suddenly everything goes boom.
- jbrnh 7y agoenv and sh are both POSIX but AFAIK the path is not specified for either of them. If POSIX has an opinion on how you should start a script I would be happy for a link? Bash in RHEL is in /usr/bin and /bin as /bin in symlinked to /usr/bin. I think it is equally unlikely that RHEL (Debian, SLES..) will will move either /bin/bash or /usr/bin/env as it would break a million scripts out there. If we should migrate to FreeBSD while, for some reason, reusing linux oriented bash scripts, changing the path to /usr/local/bin/ would be the least of my headaches. I agree that 'env' can make good sense if you don't know who/where/when your script is used. For internal projects, I don't really see the advantage.