Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of dblevins@visi.com designates
 208.42.156.9 as permitted sender)
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 19:54:29 -0700
From: David Blevins <david.blevins@visi.com>
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: Startup Scripts discussion ( GERONIMO-693 )
Message-ID: <20050705025429.GE18794@django>
References: 
 <OF4294F45F.2E0B2068-ONCA257035.0005568D-CA257035.00080E4F@tsainc.com>
 <42C9E6E5.70602@apache.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <42C9E6E5.70602@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i

On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 06:48:21PM -0700, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> sissonj@insession.com wrote:
> >toby cabot <toby@caboteria.org> wrote on 05/07/2005 12:59:14 AM:
> >>
> >>I like the idea of using a well-known baseline for the Geronimo
> >>scripts, but could we call the shell script "geronimo" instead of
> >>"geronimo.sh"?  I prefer to not expose the implementation (shell
> >>script) in the interface.
> >
> >
> >Are you concerned that we may change shells in the future?
> >
> >The startup script should have the following on the first line to instruct 
> >the system which shell interpreter we are using.
> >#! /bin/sh
> >
> 
> Not every version of Unix places the shell in the same place which can 
> make this problematic.
> 
> #!/bin/sh should work for most, /provided to stick to sh/ and don't use 
> ksh or bash extensions (just in case you happen to get a genuine sh 
> implementation).
> 

Right.  And just an reminder, Linux and OSX don't actually have sh on
the machine, it's just bash symlinked (linux) or copied (osx).

Something to remember when testing the script.

-David