> > Somehow, I'm not surprised. I've not been impressed with bash. It's > ironic that they claim to aspire to ieee 1003.2 compliance, and claim that > most posix scripts should run in bash without modification. I rarely have > got bourne shell scripts to run correctly in bash without significant > modification. (I remember trying once to replace bash with ksh93 for > Linux, and realized that I was in way over my head.) >
in my experience bourne scripts run without issue. It is the utilities like echo that cause real problems. You can be posix compliant just by allowing posix code to run. Adding your own features is accepted as long as they do not break posix code. running a /bin/sh script under bash usually (99%) works. The opposite is 1% true (-: ksh works as /bin/sh under Debian. Our policy requires that any shell that is posix complient will.
