[PATCH] Fix typos and shell for MacOSX packaging scripts

[Dirk Hohndel]

Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn <cristian.ionescu-idbohrn at axis.com> writes:

> On Tue, 2 Oct 2012, Dirk Hohndel wrote:
>> On Oct 2, 2012, at 2:00 AM, Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2 Oct 2012, Henrik Brautaset Aronsen wrote:
>> >> Den 02.10.12 10:32, skrev Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn:
>> >>> On Tue, 2 Oct 2012, Henrik Brautaset Aronsen wrote:
>> >>>> /bin/sh can be "anything", so I've forced /bin/bash for good
>> >>>> measure.
>> >>> What do you mean with "good measure"?  That script should be
>> >>> portable, ie. work with any posix shell, shouldn't it?
>> >>
>> >> This doesn't have to be very portable, since it's supposed to run on
>> >> MacOSX. Apple has changed /bin/sh earlier, I just thought it would
>> >> be smart to fix the shell to something that's known to work.
>> >
>> > To be honest, I don't really care too much about MacOSX but, as a
>> > matter of principal, the "smarter" way to have scripts work with any
>> > posix shell is to write portable code.  Even on MacOSX ;)  If Apple
>> > breaks the shell, than more than packaging scripts will be broken
>> > anyway.
>>
>> Heh. Should have read through all the emails, first.
>>
>> I agree with Cristian - I'd rather have a really portable script.
>> Could someone who is more familiar with POSIX shell limitations take a
>> look and make sure that packaging/macos/subsurface.sh is portable,
>> please?
>
> I'll take a look at that tonight and maybe get back with a patch, if
> needed.  But bear in mind that I have no way to test it on a MacOSX.

That's fine. I'm just by no stretch of the imagination an expert when it
comes to POSIX shell syntax and limitations. So all I'm hoping for is
someone with more experience on that front to take a look at the script
and make sure that it doesn't ask too much of a shell.

/D