Re: Remove "shell" as a supported Babel language within ob-shell.el (was Re: [SUGGESTION] ob-shell async result output should not contains shell prompt)

[Samuel Wales <samologist@gmail.com>]

i have a vague memory of having used sh and then we were told to use
shell.  can we all use begin src sh now?

On 3/24/23, Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@posteo.net> wrote:
> Matt <matt@excalamus.com> writes:
>
>> What benefit does "shell" provide?
>>
>> - The "shell" language allows an arbitrary executable to be run.  This
>> means that shells other than those given in `org-babel-shell-names' can be
>> run.  People using a non-supported shell could still benefit from
>> ob-shell.
>>
>> What downsides does "shell" bring?
>>
>> - "shell" falls back to `shell-file-name' which can be an arbitrary
>> executable.  Whenever I hear "runs an arbitrary executable", my ears perk
>> up and I start to sweat.  There may be security considerations.
>> - If that executable is a shell, then the prompt gets set independently
>> from Emacs.  For the prompt to be filtered from the output, users would
>> need to provide Emacs with the correct regexp.  A recent thread discussed
>> creating a header arg to address this:
>> https://list.orgmode.org/87ttzgeg3w.fsf@localhost/
>> - We would get bug reports about non-supported shells which kind of work,
>> but have issues because they're not supported
>> - Maintence associated with supporting arbitrary (shell) executables
>>
>> As the current maintainer of ob-shell, I'm in favor of removing "shell" as
>> a Babel language.  The cons appear to far outweigh the pros.  However, I'm
>> aware others may have good use for it.  It's been a part of Org for nearly
>> a decade.  I'm sure it's part of people's workflow, especially since it's
>> been in the manual for 6 years.  Are there any pros, cons, use-cases, or
>> considerations I've overlooked?
>
> I would not see arbitrary executable to be such a big deal. At the end,
> if SHELL is set to something fishy, the user is likely in serious
> trouble anyway. SHELL is a part POSIX standard at the end.
>
> Yet, the problem with unsupported shells is indeed real.
> Moreover, "shell" code blocks are currently not portable to different
> environments.
>
> I suggest the following:
> 1. Introduce a new customization `org-babel-default-shell', defaulting
>    to (or (executable-find "sh") (executable-find "cmd.exe")).
> 2. Use the value as default shell in "shell" code blocks.
> 3. Document and announce the change.
> 4. Create org-lint checker that will mark "shell" code blocks as not
>    desired.
>
> The above steps will ensure minimal breakage for existing uses of
> "shell" blocks. Only users who wrote shell blocks for non-standard shell
> will have to adapt.
>
> --
> Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
> Org mode contributor,
> Learn more about Org mode at <https://orgmode.org/>.
> Support Org development at <https://liberapay.com/org-mode>,
> or support my work at <https://liberapay.com/yantar92>
>
>


-- 
The Kafka Pandemic

A blog about science, health, human rights, and misopathy:
https://thekafkapandemic.blogspot.com