On 2009-07-24 15:49:15 +0000, brian m. carlson wrote: > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 08:31:55AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > zsh has also historically been fairly buggy in corner cases as > > /bin/sh and requires explicit commands to make it > > Bourne-compatible. Autoconf has had to add a bunch of workarounds > > for zsh as sh that I'm sure most of our shell scripts don't have. > > Actually, if it's invoked as /bin/sh, it is supposed to be > Bourne-compatible.
I suppose that (both of) you mean POSIX-compatible (as there are differences between the traditional Bourne shell and POSIX shells). > That's my experience with the current version: > > lakeview ok % emulate; /bin/sh -c emulate > zsh > sh > > I don't know what other versions do. I'm working on finding bugs with > zsh as /bin/sh; see #510358. If anyone knows about a good /bin/sh > (POSIX, XSI, or Debian) testsuite, please let me know off-list. I've also reported a number of zsh POSIX-compatibility bugs. There are still differences between shells concerning "set -e" [*], and AFAIK, POSIX hasn't been made clear yet. I wonder how this is dealt with in the switch from bash to dash for /bin/sh. [*] See http://www.in-ulm.de/~mascheck/various/set-e/ -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.org> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.org/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arenaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org