On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 15:38:08 +0200 Jesús J. Guerrero Botella <jesus.guerrero.bote...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, it's a different binary, and it's perfectly usual to find it in a > Linux system. > > But note that, at least in bash, you rarely will be using /usr/bin/[ > unless you reference it using the full path (either in a relative or > absolute way). This is because bash has a builtin that takes over that > binary file. You can check that (or any other command) by using the > "type" instruction (again, this is for bash). > > # LC_ALL=C type [ > [ is a shell builtin > > The same goes for 'test'. > > Those binaries are probably there just in case that some init or > system script written for a standard bourne shell (like the busybox > one) needs it. But don't take my word for it. I am not sure right now. You might not be sure, but that doesn't stop you still being correct :-) The binaries are usually POSIX-compliant, whereas the builtins may include extra bashisms (which tend to break apps expecting just the basic POSIX behaviour) -- Alan McKinnnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
