From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCA7F6DE0068 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 16:38:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.011, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=disabled Received: from arlo.cworth.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (arlo.cworth.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M_P4ByFablBr for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 16:38:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fethera.tethera.net (fethera.tethera.net [198.245.60.197]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D98286DE0005 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 16:38:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from remotemail by fethera.tethera.net with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1dhlMP-0006Lu-9v; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 19:34:57 -0400 Received: (nullmailer pid 6924 invoked by uid 1000); Tue, 15 Aug 2017 23:38:27 -0000 From: David Bremner To: Robert Ewald Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] emacs: Make the shell location configurable In-Reply-To: <1B88EBF6-A978-4723-AAF4-7063EF36222B@gmx.net> References: <20170814223623.28411-1-robewald@gmx.net> <87fucsom30.fsf@tesseract.cs.unb.ca> <1B88EBF6-A978-4723-AAF4-7063EF36222B@gmx.net> Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 20:38:27 -0300 Message-ID: <874lt8jtak.fsf@tethera.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 23:38:31 -0000 Robert Ewald writes: > Does the shell-file-name have to be bourne shell compatible? My > understanding is that using "/bin/sh" requires a POSIX compatible shell, > bash specific shell scripts should be invoked with e.g. /bin/bash. > I believe a POSIX compatible shell is sufficient in this particular case. > Of course, if shell-file-name is not POSIX compatible this line may not > work. Yeah, I was sloppy. Hopefully POSIX compatibility is enough (if not we can probably fix that). But as you note there's no guarantee shell-file-name is POSIX compatible. d