Andrew Haley wrote:
Martin Buchholz wrote:
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 1:22 AM, Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But if one of our scripts actually needs bash (not just sh) why not use
#!/bin/bash ?
sh is a horrible programming language whose primary virtue is
portability -- every Unix system since the dark ages has it.
Much of that is lost when replacing #!/bin/sh with #!/bin/bash.
Might as well upgrade to a "real" programming language.
Sure, but this bug seems to suggest that we *already* rely on
/bin/bash, but we pretend not to by assuming that /bin/sh runs
bash. If we rely on bash, let's be straight about it.
Andrew.
er.. there's a little more to it than that, methinks.
First, because it's /bin/sh that's portable (not /bin/bash) I believe
the shell scripts should be written for compatibility with /bin/sh
Second, it's an open question whether dash or bash does a better job of
implementing /bin/sh and I have no clue as to which does the better job.
I think it's either a) fix the script in question or b) fix dash.
<tongue-in-cheek> BTW does anybody know where to get a SHCK? (/bin/sh
Compatibility Kit) How can we be sure any /bin/sh interpreter is
actually compatible with /bin/sh ?? </tongue-in-cheek>
- David Herron
