David Herron wrote: > 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.
> 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 No argument. > 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. Ah, okay. My understanding was that dash is being correct in its implementation of sh, but the script was assuming more than just sh -- but I'm not a sh expert either. > 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> I use as a reference Kernighan & Pike, _The UNIX Programming Environment_, which has a "year zero" baseline of sh facilities. :-) Andrew.
