# A short rant about #!/bin/sh **URL:** \ **Category:** Lounge\ **Created:** [February 10, 2021, 1:11pm UTC](https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/a-short-rant-about-bin-sh/11888 "2021-02-10T13:11:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Kresimir](https://forum.endeavouros.com/user_avatar/forum.endeavouros.com/kresimir/32/73739_2.png) [@Kresimir](https://forum.endeavouros.com/u/Kresimir)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2021, 1:11pm UTC](https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/a-short-rant-about-bin-sh/11888/1 "2021-02-10T13:11:19Z")
I’m really annoyed by it. If you pick at random a dozen or so shell scripts in your `/usr/bin` directory that start with the interpreter designation of ```bash #!/bin/sh ``` you will find at least a few of them that use Bash-specific syntax (“bashisms”). And often, it is something as stupid as using ```bash [["$string1" = "$string2"]] ``` in situations where a perfectly valid POSIX command like ```bash ["$string1" = "$string2"] ``` would suffice. People who do that deserve to be devoured by a giant frog-monster. On a typical Arch/EndeavourOS install, there are dozens of such examples of scripting malpractice. Why does Arch not have a guideline that requires every script that uses `/bin/sh` as a command interpreter to contain only POSIX-compliant commands? **If you are going to use Bash-specific syntax, just put** `#!/bin/bash` **as the first line of your script and there will be no problem!** It’s so simple, just two little characters: ba. Now, because of such sloppiness, I can’t use Dash and symlink it to `/bin/sh` like on Debian or 'Buntu (at least not without editing dozens of shell scripts on every update). Really annoying. 😠 ---
**Author:** ![dalto](https://forum.endeavouros.com/user_avatar/forum.endeavouros.com/dalto/32/5577_2.png) [@dalto](https://forum.endeavouros.com/u/dalto)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2021, 1:26pm UTC](https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/a-short-rant-about-bin-sh/11888/2 "2021-02-10T13:26:55Z")
I agree that anything that uses `sh` as an interpreter should be limited to POSIX compliant syntax for portability. It only works because on Arch `sh` is a symlink to `bash` That being said, if you want your scripts to truly portable it is better to use: ```auto #!/usr/bin/env sh ``` There is no guarantee that `sh` is located at `/bin/sh` ---
**Author:** ![Kresimir](https://forum.endeavouros.com/user_avatar/forum.endeavouros.com/kresimir/32/73739_2.png) [@Kresimir](https://forum.endeavouros.com/u/Kresimir)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2021, 1:33pm UTC](https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/a-short-rant-about-bin-sh/11888/3 "2021-02-10T13:33:52Z")
Sure, portability is always a nice thing. But this is much worse than not being portable. I’m talking about shell scripts from the Arch repos that invoke `sh` to run what are actually Bash scripts. ---
**Author:** ![keybreak](https://forum.endeavouros.com/user_avatar/forum.endeavouros.com/keybreak/32/9257_2.png) [@keybreak](https://forum.endeavouros.com/u/keybreak)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2021, 1:44pm UTC](https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/a-short-rant-about-bin-sh/11888/4 "2021-02-10T13:44:49Z")
> [@Kresimir](#): > > People who do that deserve to be devoured by a giant frog-monster. Jeez, you’re uncompromising 😂 ![image](https://forum.endeavouros.com/uploads/default/original/3X/a/c/ac6cbd210250522a76d24efa45c9b0f25291d876.jpeg) And indeed - POSIX compliant shell scripts must be kept pure. ---
**Author:** ![manuel](https://forum.endeavouros.com/user_avatar/forum.endeavouros.com/manuel/32/396_2.png) [@manuel](https://forum.endeavouros.com/u/manuel)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2021, 1:44pm UTC](https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/a-short-rant-about-bin-sh/11888/5 "2021-02-10T13:44:57Z")
I made a short look at almost all EndeavourOS scripts, and none of them used `#!/bin/sh`, except two files (i3 configs) that were directly copied from elsewhere, and didn’t seem to use any bashisms. I understand your concern, but I’d say EndeavourOS is not contributing to that sloppiness. ---
**Author:** ![Kresimir](https://forum.endeavouros.com/user_avatar/forum.endeavouros.com/kresimir/32/73739_2.png) [@Kresimir](https://forum.endeavouros.com/u/Kresimir)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2021, 2:01pm UTC](https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/a-short-rant-about-bin-sh/11888/6 "2021-02-10T14:01:08Z")
Yes, most, if not all of this sloppiness comes from upstream. I am considering writing a script that runs through the entire output of `pacman -Qlq` and checks every shell script with `checkbashisms` tool, and replaces `#!/bin/sh` with `#!/bin/bash` on each one that fails the test. For some inexplicable reason, I have the urge to use Dash as `/bin/sh`… ---
**Author:** ![manuel](https://forum.endeavouros.com/user_avatar/forum.endeavouros.com/manuel/32/396_2.png) [@manuel](https://forum.endeavouros.com/u/manuel)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2021, 2:03pm UTC](https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/a-short-rant-about-bin-sh/11888/7 "2021-02-10T14:03:30Z")
> [@Kresimir](#): > > I am considering writing a script that runs through the entire output of `pacman -Qlq` and checks every shell script with `checkbashisms` tool, and replaces `#!/bin/sh` with `#!/bin/bash` Hopefully do that in a testing VM only… 😉 ---
**Author:** ![dalto](https://forum.endeavouros.com/user_avatar/forum.endeavouros.com/dalto/32/5577_2.png) [@dalto](https://forum.endeavouros.com/u/dalto)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2021, 2:03pm UTC](https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/a-short-rant-about-bin-sh/11888/8 "2021-02-10T14:03:36Z")
> [@Kresimir](#): > > I am considering writing a script that runs through the entire output of `pacman -Qlq` and checks every shell script with `checkbashisms` tool, and replaces `#!/bin/sh` with `#!/bin/bash` on each one that fails the test. You will have to run it after every update… Why not identify them and then propose the changes to the package maintainers? I know it is a lot more work but it will fix the problem for everyone. ---
**Author:** ![Kresimir](https://forum.endeavouros.com/user_avatar/forum.endeavouros.com/kresimir/32/73739_2.png) [@Kresimir](https://forum.endeavouros.com/u/Kresimir)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2021, 2:07pm UTC](https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/a-short-rant-about-bin-sh/11888/9 "2021-02-10T14:07:27Z")
Yes, I would have to run it on every update… Which would probably make updating take a lot longer. I was considering making a list of the offenders, but I can only identify those which are installed on my machines. Well, I could go through the Arch repos online and just look for every script, but that’s an incredible amount of work. ---
**Author:** ![keybreak](https://forum.endeavouros.com/user_avatar/forum.endeavouros.com/keybreak/32/9257_2.png) [@keybreak](https://forum.endeavouros.com/u/keybreak)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2021, 2:07pm UTC](https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/a-short-rant-about-bin-sh/11888/10 "2021-02-10T14:07:45Z")
You should do that on pacman, then on AUR post all affected packages / files on their forum and tell them how they SUCK 🤣 Perhaps propose necessary change in…script policy 🙃 ---
**Author:** ![manuel](https://forum.endeavouros.com/user_avatar/forum.endeavouros.com/manuel/32/396_2.png) [@manuel](https://forum.endeavouros.com/u/manuel)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2021, 2:09pm UTC](https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/a-short-rant-about-bin-sh/11888/11 "2021-02-10T14:09:00Z")
> [@Kresimir](#): > > I can only identify those which are installed on my machines. Use a pacman hook for checking? ---
**Author:** ![dalto](https://forum.endeavouros.com/user_avatar/forum.endeavouros.com/dalto/32/5577_2.png) [@dalto](https://forum.endeavouros.com/u/dalto)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2021, 2:09pm UTC](https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/a-short-rant-about-bin-sh/11888/12 "2021-02-10T14:09:04Z")
> [@Kresimir](#): > > I was considering making a list of the offenders, but I can only identify those which are installed on my machines. Isn’t that enough? ---
**Author:** ![keybreak](https://forum.endeavouros.com/user_avatar/forum.endeavouros.com/keybreak/32/9257_2.png) [@keybreak](https://forum.endeavouros.com/u/keybreak)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2021, 2:12pm UTC](https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/a-short-rant-about-bin-sh/11888/13 "2021-02-10T14:12:15Z")
Of course not! 😲 We must parse all GitHub / GitLab / Private gits around the world and tell each one of them how much they suck as well 🐸 But Arch upstream would be good start 😆 @Kresimir Sorry, i couldn’t [hold myself](https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/share-your-linux-memes/5222/109) 😂 ---
**Author:** ![Kresimir](https://forum.endeavouros.com/user_avatar/forum.endeavouros.com/kresimir/32/73739_2.png) [@Kresimir](https://forum.endeavouros.com/u/Kresimir)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2021, 4:04pm UTC](https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/a-short-rant-about-bin-sh/11888/14 "2021-02-10T16:04:21Z")
So… after about an hour of running a script which I quickly put together, this is the result: ```nohighlight core/automake 1.16.2-3 /usr/share/automake-1.16/config.guess /usr/share/automake-1.16/install-sh core/bash 5.0.018-1 /usr/bin/bashbug core/cronie 1.5.5-1 /etc/cron.hourly/0anacron extra/dkms 2.8.3-1 /usr/lib/dkms/dkms_autoinstaller core/gettext 0.21-1 /usr/bin/autopoint /usr/bin/gettext.sh /usr/bin/gettextize /usr/share/gettext/projects/GNOME/team-address /usr/share/gettext/projects/KDE/team-address extra/git 2.28.0-1 /usr/lib/git-core/git-bisect /usr/lib/git-core/git-bisect--helper /usr/lib/git-core/git-web--browse /usr/share/git/git-jump/git-jump /usr/share/git/thunderbird-patch-inline/appp.sh core/groff 1.22.4-3 /usr/bin/eqn2graph /usr/bin/grap2graph /usr/bin/pdfroff /usr/bin/pic2graph core/grub 2:2.04-8 /usr/bin/grub-mkconfig core/gzip 1.10-3 /usr/bin/gzexe /usr/bin/zdiff /usr/bin/zgrep core/hdparm 9.58-3 /usr/bin/ultrabayd extra/hwloc 2.2.0-1 /usr/bin/hwloc-gather-topology core/libtool 2.4.6+42+gb88cebd5-14 /usr/bin/libtool /usr/bin/libtoolize /usr/bin/libtoolize /usr/share/libtool/build-aux/config.guess /usr/share/libtool/build-aux/install-sh /usr/share/libtool/build-aux/ltmain.sh /usr/share/libtool/configure /usr/share/libtool/configure.ac community/lsb-release 1.4-18 /usr/bin/lsb_release extra/mjpegtools 2.1.0-5 /usr/bin/lav2avi.sh /usr/bin/lav2mpeg /usr/bin/lavtc.sh extra/mtools 4.0.24-1 /usr/bin/tgz /usr/lib/resolvconf/dnsmasq core/openresolv 3.11.0-1 /usr/lib/resolvconf/named /usr/lib/resolvconf/pdns_recursor /usr/lib/resolvconf/pdnsd /usr/lib/resolvconf/unbound extra/openvpn 2.4.9-2 /usr/share/openvpn/contrib/pull-resolv-conf/client.down /usr/share/openvpn/contrib/pull-resolv-conf/client.up community/os-prober 1.77-2 /usr/bin/os-prober /usr/lib/linux-boot-probes/50mounted-tests /usr/lib/os-probes/50mounted-tests /usr/lib/os-probes/init/10filesystems /usr/lib/os-probes/mounted/05efi extra/texlive-core 2020.55416-1 /usr/share/texmf-dist/context/data/textadept/context/textadept-context.sh /usr/share/texmf-dist/web2c/mktexnam /usr/share/texmf-dist/web2c/mktexnam.opt /usr/share/tlpkg/installer/config.guess extra/texlive-pictures 2020.55342-1 /usr/share/texmf-dist/scripts/pgfplots/pgf2pdf.sh core/usbutils 012-2 /usr/bin/usb-devices extra/xdg-utils 1.1.3+19+g9816ebb-1 /usr/bin/xdg-desktop-icon /usr/bin/xdg-desktop-menu /usr/bin/xdg-email /usr/bin/xdg-icon-resource /usr/bin/xdg-mime /usr/bin/xdg-open /usr/bin/xdg-screensaver /usr/bin/xdg-settings core/xz 5.2.5-1 /usr/bin/xzdiff ``` There are some 23 packages on my system, many of these from the “core” repo, which ship some 65 scripts with which are identified as POSIX scripts by the `file` command (and use `sh` as the command interpreter), but are identified by the `checkbashisms` utility to contain POSIX non-compliant commands. In total, some 823 scripts were checked, so the percentage of offending scripts was around 7.9%. Ironically, a script from the package `bash` which is used to report bugs in Bash, is one of those offending scripts. If anyone else wants to do a similar analysis, I’d be very interested in your results. ---
**Author:** ![mbod](https://forum.endeavouros.com/user_avatar/forum.endeavouros.com/mbod/32/16833_2.png) [@mbod](https://forum.endeavouros.com/u/mbod)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2021, 4:11pm UTC](https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/a-short-rant-about-bin-sh/11888/15 "2021-02-10T16:11:23Z")
> [@Kresimir](#): > > People who do that deserve to be devoured by a giant frog-monster. 🤣 🤣 🤣 ---
**Author:** ![keybreak](https://forum.endeavouros.com/user_avatar/forum.endeavouros.com/keybreak/32/9257_2.png) [@keybreak](https://forum.endeavouros.com/u/keybreak)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2021, 4:16pm UTC](https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/a-short-rant-about-bin-sh/11888/16 "2021-02-10T16:16:48Z")
Jesus…Some of the offenders are let’s say…IRONIC 🤣 ---
**Author:** ![dalto](https://forum.endeavouros.com/user_avatar/forum.endeavouros.com/dalto/32/5577_2.png) [@dalto](https://forum.endeavouros.com/u/dalto)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2021, 4:27pm UTC](https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/a-short-rant-about-bin-sh/11888/17 "2021-02-10T16:27:51Z")
_Sigh_…I bet some of those aren’t Arch packaging issues but upstream issues with the software itself. For example, the scripts for `os-prober` appear to come entirely from the debian package. Reporting it to Arch wouldn’t even help. Which leads to an interesting question, does Debian also use bash for sh? If not, is it an issue with the checking script? ---
**Author:** ![LizziAS](https://forum.endeavouros.com/user_avatar/forum.endeavouros.com/lizzias/32/11692_2.png) [@LizziAS](https://forum.endeavouros.com/u/LizziAS)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2021, 4:34pm UTC](https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/a-short-rant-about-bin-sh/11888/18 "2021-02-10T16:34:21Z")
> [@dalto](#): > > It only works because on Arch `sh` is a symlink to `bash` This pretty much says no on in arch cares. Or that since it points to bash they don’t want posix compliance ---
**Author:** ![Kresimir](https://forum.endeavouros.com/user_avatar/forum.endeavouros.com/kresimir/32/73739_2.png) [@Kresimir](https://forum.endeavouros.com/u/Kresimir)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2021, 5:26pm UTC](https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/a-short-rant-about-bin-sh/11888/19 "2021-02-10T17:26:49Z")
> [@dalto](#): > > Which leads to an interesting question, does Debian also use bash for sh? If not, is it an issue with the checking script? Debian uses Dash as the default system shell (and links it to `/bin/sh`), and requires all scripts with `#!/bin/sh` to be POSIX compliant. However, Dash will interpret some (very few) non-POSIX commands. When it comes to `os-prober`, Dash will run it just fine, even though it contains the command `type` which is not POSIX-compliant. Thus `os-prober` is probably a bad example, and could be tolerated. ---
**Author:** ![joekamprad](https://forum.endeavouros.com/user_avatar/forum.endeavouros.com/joekamprad/32/77608_2.png) [@joekamprad](https://forum.endeavouros.com/u/joekamprad)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2021, 5:39pm UTC](https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/a-short-rant-about-bin-sh/11888/20 "2021-02-10T17:39:47Z")
> [@manuel](#): > > (i3 configs) i will asap change that I do not want to fight with that giant frogalike monster 🐸 👹 [Next page](https://forum.endeavouros.com/t/a-short-rant-about-bin-sh/11888.md?page=2)