Hi, [email protected] wrote on Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:23:14PM +0100:
> Now, let's say I have a library of shell functions, and I want > the usage instructions and manpage synopsis to be simple: > > . mylib.sh > mylib_this ... > mylib_that ... what you are trying to achieve seems like a terrible idea to me in the first place, so the answer to your question doesn't matter all that much. Do not write libraries of shell functions. Period. No non-trivial amount of code should be written for sh(1), it is one of the most unsafe programming languages by design. Consider it as a command interpreter for interactive use, not as a programming language for any non-trivial projects. Even for private, quick and dirty system administrator style hacks, you are usually much better off with perl(1) than with sh(1) security-wise. For some extremely low-level system code like a boot script (/etc/rc) or like a command-line system install script, using the shell may be unavoidable, but even writing such a trivial pieces of software for the shell needs great care and is better left to experts. Providing a library of shell functions for other programmers to play with is a utterly scary idea and very likely to result in lots of vulnerabilities. Don't do it. Not in the 21st century. Pretty please. Thanks, Ingo -- Ingo Schwarze http://www.openbsd.org/ <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ fhs-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/fhs-discuss
