Bash is easily obtained on these systems and I think the extra functionality available in post-Bourne shells ought to be allowed. I also question how many people are going to run tools on *BSD since most underlying analysis tools tend to only target Linux. That said, shell code should be restricted to Bourne-compatible syntax whenever there’s no good reason to use non-Bourne features, e.g. if all you’re doing is `export FOO=foo`, you should not be forcing the use of bash. In cases where bash really is required (say, you’re using arrays), the script should explicitly specify '#!/bin/bash' (or '#!/usr/bin/env bash'?) rather than '#!/bin/sh'. —nate On Nov 11, 2013, at 11:04 AM, James Taylor <james@jamestaylor.org> wrote:
This is not an objection, but do we need bash? Can we live with posix sh? We should ask this question about every requirement we introduce.
(bash is not part of the default installation of FreeBSD or OpenBSD for example. bash is unfortunately licensed under GPLV3, so if you are trying to create an OS not polluted by viral licensing you don't get bash).
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 11:36 AM, John Chilton <chilton@msi.umn.edu> wrote:
My own preference is that we specify at least /bin/sh and /bin/bash are available before utilizing the tool shed. Is there an objection to this from any corner? Is there realistically a system that Galaxy should support that will not have /bin/bash available?
-- James Taylor, Associate Professor, Biology/CS, Emory University ___________________________________________________________ Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all" in your mail client. To manage your subscriptions to this and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at: http://lists.bx.psu.edu/
To search Galaxy mailing lists use the unified search at: http://galaxyproject.org/search/mailinglists/