18

I'm coming from Linux to macOS, and many of my scripts assume GNU versions of the utils provided in GNU coreutils.

I could just put the GNU coreutils bin directory in earlier in $PATH than /bin.

Is this commonly done? If I do it, what downsides/breakages should I expect in future?

Improve this question
2
  • 2
    Use full paths for the GNU utilities in your scripts.
    – Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen
    Dec 4, 2021 at 10:28
  • 2
    You could include a flag in your scripts, say "${USE_COREUTILS}". In your scripts, set it to 0 or set (defaults to 1 or unset), and in your rc file, include the line [ $USE_COREUTILS -eq 0 ] && PATH=$PATH:/path/to/coreutils/directory. This is how it would look in .bashrc anyway. I doubt mac shells are much different. As far as I know, it would work with .zshrc as well. I haven't tested the code, so you may need to iron out the kinks. Edit: or just use the Homebrew version mentioned below... : )
    – Nate T
    Dec 5, 2021 at 4:14

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
19

It will break any script which expects BSD-style utilities (different arguments, partially different functionality)

But you can install coreutils with Homebrew or Macports which will give them a g prefix (gcp etc). And then adapt your scripts to use those (depending on the platform they run).

Improve this answer
17

While using un-prefixed coreutils has the potential to break any script expecting BSD-style programs, I have been using un-prefixed coreutils for almost 8 years now, and I've never run into a single issue. Given the anecdotal nature of that experience report you should take it with a grain of salt, but my experience has been that the reported dangers of un-prefixing are overblown.

Improve this answer
1
  • 1
    Likewise. I flit between Linux at home and Mac at work (software dev) and haven't ever encountered a problem, while I've encountered plenty of problems with scripts that expect GNU utils not working on MacOS (usually switches that are GNU-only). And it's really nice to have my own stuff work the same across both OSes.
    – Jared Smith
    Dec 6, 2021 at 17:41
3

I think it's safer to not have the GNU coreutils first in PATH, but I don't really know macOS.

A relatively easy way to get your existing scripts to use GNU coreutils is to redefine PATH in the beginning of each script.

export PATH=/path/to/coreutils:$PATH

This way you won't have to rename (or add full path) to all of the commands in a script.

Improve this answer
1
  • +1 – this has the additional advantage of making this explicit in the script, rather than letting the script be dependent on (ie, hostage to) the environment the script is run in.
    – Norman Gray
    Dec 6, 2021 at 14:37

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .