H. Peter Anvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think the right thing is to specify something like this: > > /bin/sh MUST be present; SHALL be POSIX.2 conforming > Shells specifically approved include: bash, ksh, ash?
I wonder if any shell other than bash will completely work in most distributions as /bin/sh. > /bin/csh IF present, MUST be compatible (bugs excepted) with > the BSD C-shell. tcsh is specifically allowed. > > /bin/ksh IF present, MUST match the Korn Shell specification > pdksh and ksh93 are specifically allowed. Is pdksh completely compatible with the original ksh? > /bin/bash IF present, MUST be the Bourne Again Shell from the > Free Software Foundation or a fully compatible > program. > > /bin/tcsh IF present, MUST be tcsh 6 or later from Cornell > University or a fully compatible program. I think we stop caring after this point. tcsh is no longer from Cornell, btw. It's ftp.deshaw.com. > /bin/zsh IF present, MUST be zsh ..?.. or a fully compatible > program. > > /bin/ash IF present, MUST be ash from BSD ...?... or a fully > compatible program. > > Any more shell names that should be reserved? Some names are already reserved in FHS. This stuff probably belongs there. > As a general rule, shells should live in /bin or have symlinks from > /bin. Done in FHS, except for things like Perl and Tcl. - Dan
