Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 20:13:33 -0800 From: Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Portability of shell scripts from other *nixes Message-ID: <8E97D656-0FC1-4DD5-9F94-6707823F9F12@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <4F20C759.7060508@herveybayaustralia.com.au> References: <ac1be76b3dd10516e61861ae253b793f.squirrel@email.polands.org> <28F1F479-EA39-4841-AE54-76F0E512C02B@mac.com> <912B3883-ABA1-4EE7-857B-CA8A55C8B506@polands.org> <4F20C759.7060508@herveybayaustralia.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi-- On Jan 25, 2012, at 7:24 PM, Da Rock wrote: > On 01/26/12 12:55, Doug Poland wrote: >> This gets me closer, but the scripts behave differently now on OS X. For example, printf's don't output the same. > > Try searching on google and find out exactly what sh MacOSX is using. Then you'd have a better idea on what you're working with. /bin/sh on MacOSX is: $ /bin/sh --version GNU bash, version 3.2.48(1)-release (x86_64-apple-darwin10.0) Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. ...and it has been using bash as /bin/sh since 10.2 or so. Anyway, running bash as /bin/sh versus as /bin/bash likely affects whether it invokes printf as a builtin(1) command or as an external command. It's possible that invoking /usr/bin/printf instead of just printf in the scripts might resolve the issue(s). Regards, -- -Chuck
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8E97D656-0FC1-4DD5-9F94-6707823F9F12>