On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:21 AM, Hans Hagen <pragma@wxs.nl> wrote:

> On 30-10-2012 22:33, Bill Meahan wrote:
>
>> On 10/30/2012 01:39 PM, Hans Hagen wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> sure, till one replaces bash by something non-bash-ish while the user
>>> still thinks he's running bash (i always fear the moment that someone
>>> decides that swapping the 'cp' arguments without renaming the command
>>> is a good idea -)
>>>
>>> (i wouldn't be surprised if it can backfire badly in more complex
>>> situations)
>>>
>>> Hans
>>>
>>>
>> My background is in "commercial" Unix and I've had situations like
>> having to administer an HP box (HPUX) a Sun box (Solaris) a Teradata box
>> (some flavor or other of SYS V R4) some BSD and Linux on the same day.
>> :) Only thing I could count on was the "official" AT&T Bourne shell
>> syntax.
>>
>> I use ksh93 (the AT&T distribution) as my login shell.
>>
>
> This assumes control over the login shell as well as control over what the
> launchers of system processes use. I must admit that till now I always
> assumed some stability in this, which is probably okay as long as one
> sticks to one specific distribution (of linux).
>
> I think that the main problem is that #! /bin/sh can mean anything
> (although in your case I suppose you expect it to be the bourne shell).
>
> So the question is, should the scripts that come with context (like the
> installer) be explicit and become #! /bin/bash ?
>

In my opinion, yes.
And then
bash first-setup.sh
and
source setuptex
are ok.

-- 
luigi