Use POSIX scripts for de-/activation scripts

[mbargull]

Checklist

• Used a personal fork of the feedstock to propose changes
• Bumped the build number (if the version is unchanged)
• [ x Reset the build number to 0 (if the version changed)
• Re-rendered with the latest conda-smithy (Use the phrase @conda-forge-admin, please rerender in a comment in this PR for automated rerendering)
• Ensured the license file is being packaged.

Fixes gh-221

[conda-forge-webservices]

Hi! This is the friendly automated conda-forge-linting service.

I just wanted to let you know that I linted all conda-recipes in your PR (recipe) and found it was in an excellent condition.

[isuruf]

Can't we use

shellcheck:
  enabled: true

in conda-forge.yml?

[mbargull]

Can't we use

shellcheck:
  enabled: true

in conda-forge.yml?

I wasn't aware of that option to be honest.
But no, it wouldn't work since that one has, e.g., --shell=bash hard coded:
https://github.com/conda-forge/conda-smithy/blob/v3.36.2/conda_smithy/lint_recipe.py#L798
(and that CLI arg would override any shell=sh directive).

[conda-forge-webservices]

Hi! This is the friendly automated conda-forge-linting service.

I was trying to look for recipes to lint for you, but it appears we have a merge conflict.
Please try to merge or rebase with the base branch to resolve this conflict.

Please ping the 'conda-forge/core' team (using the @ notation in a comment) if you believe this is a bug.

[conda-forge-webservices]

Hi! This is the friendly automated conda-forge-linting service.

I just wanted to let you know that I linted all conda-recipes in your PR (recipe) and found it was in an excellent condition.

[isuruf]

But no, it wouldn't work since that one has, e.g., --shell=bash hard coded:

Maybe that should be added as an option. Can you open an issue in conda-smithy?

As for this PR, I'd rather have this test with shellcheck in build-r-base.sh rather than the test section which requires shellcheck only in build_platform and not target_platform.

[wolfv]

Isn't the shellcheck pretty orthogonal to this fix? :)

[mbargull]

Isn't the shellcheck pretty orthogonal to this fix? :)

That's a question on whether one sees regression tests as orthogonal to fixes or not ;).
So, IMO, no, since I'd want us to avoid to regress on this.

[mbargull]

Maybe that should be added as an option. Can you open an issue in conda-smithy?

conda-forge/conda-smithy#1965