> If /bin/sh is POSIX, and the POSIX conforming shells are not fast > enough in certain applications, then there are some other options, > including: > > - changing the first line of those scripts where bash 2 is too slow > - changing /bin/sh and accepting potential problems that come with > not having a LSB compliant system. > - fixing bash 2 (or pdksh) to be faster
Thats a minor issue. What about all the commercial software currently working and installing on vendor distributions that breaks with bash2 as /bin/sh. A "/bin/sh" will change decree breaks it all unneccessarily. Why not let people who require a precisely defined posix shell specify /bin/posixsh > And then there is the issue of referencing a /bin/sh standard. If not > POSIX, then a predecessor. Maybe the XPG3 Shell specifcation, as > suggested by Andrew Josey. > > I'd like us to specify POSIX.2 in the draft for now. Definitely - but why call it /bin/sh ? > > And /bin/csh should be tcsh, nobody maintains csh. Again hazardous to compatibility. Metamail wont be the only thing that the change in quoting rules leaves misfunctioning. If there isnt a csh why not have no /bin/csh. Alan
