Hi,
Does anyone know if it is possible to use bash instead of sh as the
default shell when "system" is executed?
For example, system("java --version") is executing java --version in sh,
instead of bash, which can be a problem when I tried to do error
redirection.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Wai Tsang schrieb:
Does anyone know if it is possible to use bash instead of sh as the
default shell when "system" is executed?System() should always call /bin/sh (on a POSIX compliant system),
Where did you get that information from?
but of course you could still have sh call bash, like this:
system("bash java --version")
Yes, of course.
robert
On 25.04.2007 17:43, Björn Paetzel wrote:
Hi,
Does anyone know if it is possible to use bash instead of sh as the
default shell when "system" is executed?For example, system("java --version") is executing java --version in sh,
instead of bash, which can be a problem when I tried to do error
redirection.--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
If bash is in your path you can do
system("bash -c \"java -version\"")
else you just have to put the full path, this works even on Windows 
Of course that is not exactly what you want, you would like to tell
Kernel or whatever other object that wants to hear that kind of
message: "You are going to use /bin/bash for system from now on".
So I went digging the code, no such luck, I just could not find the
definition of Kernel#system 
neither with rb_define_method.*system
nor with def\s*system
and even less with
alias\s*system
or
rb_alias.*system
Hope that somebody more learned will help us out here.
Cheers
Robert
On 4/25/07, Wai Tsang <simotsa@gmail.com> wrote:
--
You see things; and you say Why?
But I dream things that never were; and I say Why not?
-- George Bernard Shaw
system() with multiple arguments bypasses the shell. So try:
system("/bin/bash", "-c", "java --version")
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 12:18:04AM +0900, Wai Tsang wrote:
Does anyone know if it is possible to use bash instead of sh as the
default shell when "system" is executed?
Whenever 'system' is executed? Not sure about that. But what you might be able to do is have a new file that stores code which defines 'system2', and you could include that. It might be something like:
def system2(command)
system 'bash'
system '#{command}
end
Of course, i have no clue (yet) how to use #{stuff} in my code, so any help would automatically be worthy of worship.
Oh, and same with having two parameters in 'do' commands. Help? Please?
HTH
-------------------------------------------------------|
~ Ari
crap my sig won't fit
On Apr 25, 2007, at 11:18 AM, Wai Tsang wrote:
Hi,
Does anyone know if it is possible to use bash instead of sh as the
default shell when "system" is executed?
Wai Tsang <simotsa@gmail.com> writes:
Hi,
Does anyone know if it is possible to use bash instead of sh as the
default shell when "system" is executed?For example, system("java --version") is executing java --version in sh,
instead of bash, which can be a problem when I tried to do error
redirection.--
Others have indicated how you can execute the command with bash rather than sh.
However, I'm interested in why you have problems with redirecting standard
error with sh bat not bash. While I seem to remember bash offers some
additional functionality, I thought redirecting of stdin/stdout/stderr was
pretty similar, if not in syntax at least in functionality. Also, its been some
time since I did java, but from memory, it uses quite a few shell wrapper
scripts and they are all in sh rather than bash.
Just interested.
tim
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
This behavior with respect to the Single Unix
Specification is documented at:
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/system.html
Gary Wright
On Apr 25, 2007, at 12:00 PM, Robert Klemme wrote:
On 25.04.2007 17:43, Björn Paetzel wrote:
Wai Tsang schrieb:
Does anyone know if it is possible to use bash instead of sh as the
default shell when "system" is executed?System() should always call /bin/sh (on a POSIX compliant system),
Where did you get that information from?
In article <335e48a90704250904y7c06bcb5s74b34cd86d92860e@mail.gmail.com>,
Of course that is not exactly what you want, you would like to tell
Kernel or whatever other object that wants to hear that kind of
message: "You are going to use /bin/bash for system from now on".
So I went digging the code, no such luck, I just could not find the
definition of Kernel#system
neither with rb_define_method.*system
nor with def\s*system
and even less with
alias\s*system
or
rb_alias.*system
Hope that somebody more learned will help us out here.
_ Ruby uses the underlying C exec call and any system that does
not use /bin/sh is severely broken. It's part of the POSIX
standard. If you want bash, then use the multi-arg form of the
command which bypasses shell interpretation entirely.
If you want the gory details look in process.c
rb_f_system
_ Booker C. Bense
Robert Dober <robert.dober@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/25/07, Wai Tsang <simotsa@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks. System('bash','-c',cmd) does the task for me.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Standards like the Single Unix Specification (and the LSB, and so on)
should be used as reasons for standardized behavior in a distributed
OS, but they aren't really relevant to customized installs. If an end
user wants to configure a system differently from the standard, that's
his/her business.
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 01:46:25AM +0900, Gary Wright wrote:
This behavior with respect to the Single Unix
Specification is documented at:
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Leon Festinger: "A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell
him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts and figures and he
questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point."
On 4/25/07, Booker C. Bense
<snip>
If you want the gory details look in process.c
rb_f_system
Thx a lot, that's what I was looking for...
_ Booker C. Bense
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2iQCVAwUBRi+0jmTWTAjn5N/lAQEwgAP/SrYiy/UhXzHGJ4G4FJwP9XV72ogYvfbO
CyhpNvaMdeBJEVp7lGl+Dw84fLlsQY6Dh9HBnzsyLv0vkpnOHByeQc+GVB9KdMYh
C91ilHEPXQdI2QJPlMmnUh4H+fvRs5NgoNXIORhE4lnbsVXBDIcl73mXY0kHU82z
fL4OcNifcnM=
=EJLT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
You see things; and you say Why?
But I dream things that never were; and I say Why not?
-- George Bernard Shaw
I didn't see anyone claiming differently. I certainly wasn't. I just
perceived the question as a desire for information about the standard.
On Apr 25, 2007, at 4:24 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 01:46:25AM +0900, Gary Wright wrote:
This behavior with respect to the Single Unix
Specification is documented at:Standards like the Single Unix Specification (and the LSB, and so on)
should be used as reasons for standardized behavior in a distributed
OS, but they aren't really relevant to customized installs. If an end
user wants to configure a system differently from the standard, that's
his/her business.