[Libreoffice] OpenBSD patch #1

[Robert Nagy]

In my opinion people should only write scripts for posix shells, but that'd be a huge development
i guess, so just using #!/usr/bin/env bash is fine, and make bash as a dependency if it is not already.

On (2010-10-28 01:13), Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> Should we change all the shell scripts that use bashisms on the "upper" level (from the "build" repo) to start with #!/usr/bin/env bash ? Is that then (finally) a good and reliable solution to the problem whether to use bash or not, and where bash is in case we do want to use it? Or is there some system on which env is not in /usr/bin ? Or does it annoy somebody to have l shell scripts first exec env and then bash, with a (very slight) slowdown?
> 
> Presumably we do require bash to be available in PATH (the "inner" build mechanism already does that as far as I know), and can continue doing that. But what we cannot rely on is that bash would be at /bin/bash, and even less that /bin/sh would be bash.
> 
> A somewhat related issue is, can we require that the interactive shell used by the developer is a Bourne-style shell? Should we continue to generate the *Env.Set scriptlet for csh or is just the *Env.Set.sh one for Bourne-style shells enough? Do *BSD-based developers often use some csh-style shell as their interactive shell? At least on Linux I assume it is very rare.
> 
> --tml
> 
>