On 2011-01-26 19:12, Daniel Gibson wrote:
> Am 26.01.2011 09:36, schrieb Jacob Carlborg:
>> On 2011-01-25 23:59, Jesse Phillips wrote:
>>> Jacob Carlborg Wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yeah, I guess you're right, didn't think there were a lot people who
>>>> used other shells. Since I almost know nothing about shell scripting and
>>>> even less about non-bourne shells, will it be possible to port to other
>>>> shells? How much do they differ?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> /Jacob Carlborg
>>>
>>> To add to Lutger's message. I believe it is sh that is required by all Posix
>>> systems, or at least an equivalent. Similarly I think vi is also a requirement.
>>>
>>> In all likelyhood you probably used a Bash specific feature, but usually
>>> everyone has bash even if they use zsh... Though Ubuntu/Debian has started
>>> pointing /bin/sh to dash which is complaint with posix...
>>
>> Ok. I'll see I can use only sh.
>>
>
> Debian (and probably ubuntu as well) has a package called "devscripts" which
> contains a handy tool called "checkbashisms". This tool tells you if your script
> uses bash-specific stuff and often even suggests a more portable alternative.

That sounds like something I could use.

> I haven't checked DVM yet, but if you want to have stuff done one login, put it
> into ~/.profile instead of ~/.bashrc - this should be executed by all POSIX
> compliant shells I think.

On Mac OS X I use .bash_profile, I don't know if .profile and/or .bashrc works. The bash man page (http://linux.die.net/man/1/bash) says:

"When bash is invoked as an interactive login shell, or as a non-interactive shell with the --login option, it first reads and executes commands from the file /etc/profile, if that file exists. After reading that file, it looks for ~/.bash_profile, ~/.bash_login, and ~/.profile, in that order, and reads and executes commands from the first one that exists and is readable."

And:

"When an interactive shell that is not a login shell is started, bash reads and executes commands from ~/.bashrc, if that file exists."

I'm not sure I know the difference between "an interactive login shell" and one that isn't.

I'm not 100% sure in what file to put the script in. But what I want is to run a script when a new shell is started, like when you open the Terminal in Ubuntu/Mac OS X or opens a new tab in the terminal.

> Cheers,
> - Daniel

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 2011-01-26 14:58, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 03:36:24 -0500, Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2011-01-25 23:59, Jesse Phillips wrote:
>>> Jacob Carlborg Wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yeah, I guess you're right, didn't think there were a lot people who
>>>> used other shells. Since I almost know nothing about shell scripting
>>>> and
>>>> even less about non-bourne shells, will it be possible to port to other
>>>> shells? How much do they differ?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> /Jacob Carlborg
>>>
>>> To add to Lutger's message. I believe it is sh that is required by
>>> all Posix systems, or at least an equivalent. Similarly I think vi is
>>> also a requirement.
>>>
>>> In all likelyhood you probably used a Bash specific feature, but
>>> usually everyone has bash even if they use zsh... Though
>>> Ubuntu/Debian has started pointing /bin/sh to dash which is complaint
>>> with posix...
>>
>> Ok. I'll see I can use only sh.
>
> FWIW, /bin/sh is usually a symlink to bash, and it makes bash behave
> like the original Bourne Shell.

/bin/sh is not a symlink on Mac OS X. I guess I just can try to use sh instead of bash.

> I typically find /bin/sh features to be enough for implementing most
> scripts.

I have no idea. I need to be able use the following commands/functions:

export, source, builtin hash, rm, echo, exit, exec

> A good reference (if you don't have it) is Unix in a nutshell, probably
> my most used textbook.

Ok, I'll have a look.

> -Steve

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 2011-01-26 21:04, "Jérôme M. Berger" wrote:
> Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> On 2011-01-25 23:59, Jesse Phillips wrote:
>>> Jacob Carlborg Wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yeah, I guess you're right, didn't think there were a lot people who
>>>> used other shells. Since I almost know nothing about shell scripting and
>>>> even less about non-bourne shells, will it be possible to port to other
>>>> shells? How much do they differ?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> /Jacob Carlborg
>>>
>>> To add to Lutger's message. I believe it is sh that is required by all
>>> Posix systems, or at least an equivalent. Similarly I think vi is also
>>> a requirement.
>>>
>>> In all likelyhood you probably used a Bash specific feature, but
>>> usually everyone has bash even if they use zsh... Though Ubuntu/Debian
>>> has started pointing /bin/sh to dash which is complaint with posix...
>>
>> Ok. I'll see I can use only sh.
>>
> 	You cannot. You need to modify the environment for the current
> shell, which is the shell that the user is currently using (no
> matter what else may or may not be installed on the system). This
> has two consequences:
>
> - You need to have some code that is run when the shell starts (i.e.
> from .bashrc, .zshrc or .kshrc). That code will define the proper
> aliases and/or functions (at the time being, this is mostly the
> "dvm" function in "dvm.sh" (*)). This can be accomplished by having
> a different version of this file for each shell;

Is it possible to detect what shell is running and then load the correct version?

> - You need to generate the contents of $dvm_result_path in a format
> that the shell will understand. The easiest way to do that is
> probably to define a few extra functions in "dvm.sh" to enable
> setting environment variables in a portable way and handle
> additional requirements (like "builtin hash -r" which is definitely
> a bash-ism). Then generate the $dvm_result_path using these
> functions instead of the normal shell syntax.

The contents of $dvm_result_path will only export one variable.

> 		Jerome
>
> (*) BTW, I hope you do not add the full contents of dvm.sh nor a
> "source dvm.sh" in .bashrc the way it is now. Otherwise, a
> misconfiguration may prevent the user from starting a shell!

OK, how else can I do the same thing? BTW this is how RVM (Ruby Version Manager) works, where I got the idea from. The whole RVM is written in shell script and it's sourced in .bashrc.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:24:56 -0500, Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> wrote:

> On 2011-01-26 14:58, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 03:36:24 -0500, Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2011-01-25 23:59, Jesse Phillips wrote:
>>>> Jacob Carlborg Wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, I guess you're right, didn't think there were a lot people who
>>>>> used other shells. Since I almost know nothing about shell scripting
>>>>> and
>>>>> even less about non-bourne shells, will it be possible to port to other
>>>>> shells? How much do they differ?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> /Jacob Carlborg
>>>>
>>>> To add to Lutger's message. I believe it is sh that is required by
>>>> all Posix systems, or at least an equivalent. Similarly I think vi is
>>>> also a requirement.
>>>>
>>>> In all likelyhood you probably used a Bash specific feature, but
>>>> usually everyone has bash even if they use zsh... Though
>>>> Ubuntu/Debian has started pointing /bin/sh to dash which is complaint
>>>> with posix...
>>>
>>> Ok. I'll see I can use only sh.
>>
>> FWIW, /bin/sh is usually a symlink to bash, and it makes bash behave
>> like the original Bourne Shell.
>
> /bin/sh is not a symlink on Mac OS X. I guess I just can try to use sh instead of bash.

Yes, it should limit you to /bin/sh supported commands

>
>> I typically find /bin/sh features to be enough for implementing most
>> scripts.
>
> I have no idea. I need to be able use the following commands/functions:
>
> export, source, builtin hash, rm, echo, exit, exec

export => supported, but has a more limited syntax than bash
source => supported via .
builtin hash => supported
rm => command (shell independent)
exit => supported
exec => supported

-Steve

"Jacob Carlborg" <doob@me.com> wrote in message news:ihq02n$28ki$1@digitalmars.com...
> On 2011-01-26 14:58, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 03:36:24 -0500, Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> wrote:
>>
>> I typically find /bin/sh features to be enough for implementing most scripts.
>
> I have no idea. I need to be able use the following commands/functions:
>
> export, source, builtin hash, rm, echo, exit, exec
>

Can't all (or most) of that be done in straight D?

On 2011-01-26 21:53, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Jacob Carlborg"<doob@me.com>  wrote in message
> news:ihq02n$28ki$1@digitalmars.com...
>> On 2011-01-26 14:58, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 03:36:24 -0500, Jacob Carlborg<doob@me.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>> I typically find /bin/sh features to be enough for implementing most
>>> scripts.
>>
>> I have no idea. I need to be able use the following commands/functions:
>>
>> export, source, builtin hash, rm, echo, exit, exec
>>
>
> Can't all (or most) of that be done in straight D?

It all comes done to one thing, the "source" function. If you launch an application in a shell that application can't set environment variables that will be available to the shell when the application exits.

So instead I have most of the application written in D with a bash function that wraps the application. It works like this:

1. The function calls the D application
2. The D application performs all it needs to and writes a shell script to a file
3. The bash function calls "source" with this file as a parameter


-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 2011-01-26 21:47, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:24:56 -0500, Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2011-01-26 14:58, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 03:36:24 -0500, Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2011-01-25 23:59, Jesse Phillips wrote:
>>>>> Jacob Carlborg Wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, I guess you're right, didn't think there were a lot people who
>>>>>> used other shells. Since I almost know nothing about shell scripting
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> even less about non-bourne shells, will it be possible to port to
>>>>>> other
>>>>>> shells? How much do they differ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> /Jacob Carlborg
>>>>>
>>>>> To add to Lutger's message. I believe it is sh that is required by
>>>>> all Posix systems, or at least an equivalent. Similarly I think vi is
>>>>> also a requirement.
>>>>>
>>>>> In all likelyhood you probably used a Bash specific feature, but
>>>>> usually everyone has bash even if they use zsh... Though
>>>>> Ubuntu/Debian has started pointing /bin/sh to dash which is complaint
>>>>> with posix...
>>>>
>>>> Ok. I'll see I can use only sh.
>>>
>>> FWIW, /bin/sh is usually a symlink to bash, and it makes bash behave
>>> like the original Bourne Shell.
>>
>> /bin/sh is not a symlink on Mac OS X. I guess I just can try to use sh
>> instead of bash.
>
> Yes, it should limit you to /bin/sh supported commands
>
>>
>>> I typically find /bin/sh features to be enough for implementing most
>>> scripts.
>>
>> I have no idea. I need to be able use the following commands/functions:
>>
>> export, source, builtin hash, rm, echo, exit, exec
>
> export => supported, but has a more limited syntax than bash
> source => supported via .
> builtin hash => supported
> rm => command (shell independent)
> exit => supported
> exec => supported
>
> -Steve

Ok, thanks.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 2011-01-26 15:24:56 -0500, Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> said:

> /bin/sh is not a symlink on Mac OS X. I guess I just can try to use sh instead of bash.

But should it output this?

$ /bin/sh --version
GNU bash, version 3.2.48(1)-release (x86_64-apple-darwin10.0)
Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
$

This is on Mac OS X 10.6.6.

-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin@michelf.com
http://michelf.com/

On 2011-01-26 23:46, Michel Fortin wrote:
> On 2011-01-26 15:24:56 -0500, Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> said:
>
>> /bin/sh is not a symlink on Mac OS X. I guess I just can try to use sh
>> instead of bash.
>
> But should it output this?
>
> $ /bin/sh --version
> GNU bash, version 3.2.48(1)-release (x86_64-apple-darwin10.0)
> Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> $
>
> This is on Mac OS X 10.6.6.

I have no idea. Perhaps it will run bash in a mode which is compatible with sh.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

Am 27.01.2011 13:05, schrieb Jacob Carlborg:
> On 2011-01-26 23:46, Michel Fortin wrote:
>> On 2011-01-26 15:24:56 -0500, Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> said:
>>
>>> /bin/sh is not a symlink on Mac OS X. I guess I just can try to use sh
>>> instead of bash.
>>
>> But should it output this?
>>
>> $ /bin/sh --version
>> GNU bash, version 3.2.48(1)-release (x86_64-apple-darwin10.0)
>> Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>> $
>>
>> This is on Mac OS X 10.6.6.
>
> I have no idea. Perhaps it will run bash in a mode which is compatible
> with sh.
>

Or just in normal mode, like linux distributions have been done for ages (and some still do).
bash *is* compatible with sh (=> everything that runs in sh runs in bash), but sh is not compatible with bash (=> bash has features that other sh-compliant shells don't have and that are not required by the corresponding POSIX standard).