On Wed Feb 02 2000 at 08:00, Kevin Waterson wrote:
> Tony Nugent wrote:
>
> > On Mon Jan 31 2000 at 11:43, Alan Cox wrote:
> >
> > > > My understanding was that bash2 was fully backwards compatable. I
> > > > could however be mildly/wildly mistaken
> > >
> > > It is mostly but not 100%. The breakages are actually not so much a
> > > bash fault either. bash2 is more strictly compliant and this bites
> > > some scripts
> >
> > But honestly, is there any *real* reason to stick with bash v1.14.x ?
> >
> > Let the old #!/bin/bash scripts break -- they need to be fixed.
> perhaps a simple bash2 script to update bash1 scripts?
It's not so simple to do that, not at all. The differences a quite
subtle, and getting a "simple" script to do *exactly* the right thing
isn't such a simple job.
Besides, the syntatic differences are relatively minor, very few
scripts and functions will break, and those that do will quickly be
discovered and easily fixed, (and should need fixing in only one or
two places).
Problem that I've found is that the error messages that bash v2 gives
you tend to be rather terse and usually not very helpful in tracking
down the actual location of the errors it complains about. For
example, leaving out a `;' in something like `{ statements }' will
result in complaints, but tracking down where this is occurring if you
don't know what to look for can be tedius.
/bin/bash should be version 2.x as default for the next redhat
release. bash v1 should become /bin/bash1
Cheers
Tony
--
To unsubscribe:
mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
