'open' instead of 'xdg-open' for usability?
dominique.michel at vtxnet.ch
Thu Dec 19 15:10:58 PST 2013
Le Tue, 17 Dec 2013 16:58:57 +0100,
Diggory Hardy <lists at dhardy.name> a écrit :
> Replying because this is a good question and not fully answered...
> The problem is not standards but compatibility, as stated.
> What was not mentioned is that Debian switched the default /bin/sh
> implementation from bash to a simpler POSIX shell (I think dash) not
> so long ago. Naturally, they had similiar compatibility issues — but
> were able to fix the scripts which actually broke.
Sure, a script that start with #!/bin/sh must be tested with a sh
compatible shell, not with bash.
> I don't think any of the systems I have installed recently had an
> 'open' command installed by default (I always alias this to xdg-open
> on my systems). If the 'open' alias is removed, a few scripts may
> break here and there, and people will fix them (to use less generic
> names like 'openvt' or whatever).
> Usage of generic/short names in scripts is inappropriate anyway, IMO.
> For example, typing 'tar xaf xyz.tar.xz' on an interactive command
> line is fine, but in a script long options (--extract, etc) should be
> used. In fact, if there was a way to enforce this type of thing in
> scripts then it ought to be used — along these lines I always head
> scripts #!/bin/sh not #!/bin/bash.
When I need array variables, I use #!/bin/bash because bash is much
more convenient for that. I can even use #!/bin/bash with big scripts
just because my favourite distribution is using bash by default, and I
don't necessarily have the time to test them in virtualbox with Debian.
So anyway, bash is here to stay.
> TLDR: this can be changed and should be, IMO.
> On Monday 16 December 2013 04:03:57 Robert Qualls wrote:
> > ...
More information about the xdg