Danh Doan <congdanhqx@gmail.com> writes: > David Bremner <david@tethera.net> writes: > >> Danh Doan <congdanhqx@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> >>> I wonder if it's better to keep `/usr/bin/env bash` instead of resolving >>> bash to specific file. Something like this: >>> >> >> This will require Debian (and I think Fedora) to do the resolution >> themselves, because they don't support "#! /usr/bin/env interpreter" >> Of course the distro specific patches are slightly less complicated, >> since they can hard code the location of bash. > > I have nothing against your approach, > but I still slightly prefer to be able to run `configure` script without > setting environment variable. > Have you verified that you need to set an evironment variable? If there is only one bash in $PATH, command -v should work fine. The previous bug was using the variable BASH, which bash itself sets to /bin/sh (which I find odd, but nobody asked me). I only have the environment variable setting in the Debian packaging to work around a (since resolved) misconfiguration [1] of the debian autobuilders. > Is it acceptable to emulate `realpath` in `configure` script? > If yes, we could borrow this script (MIT licensed). > > https://github.com/chriskempson/base16-shell/blob/master/realpath/realpath.sh > It starts to seem a bit overcomplicated at that point. [1]: The autobuilders had /bin as a link to /usr/bin, but the resulting binary packages were installed on systems without that link. Hilarity ensued. _______________________________________________ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch