Re: shells and posix compliance [was Re: Switching /bin/sh to dash without dash essential]

Clint Adams wrote: [not replying off-list because that seems counterproductive and arrogant] On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 03:49:15PM +, brian m. carlson wrote: Actually, if it's invoked as /bin/sh, it is supposed to be Bourne-compatible. That's my experience with the current version: Not

shells and posix compliance [was Re: Switching /bin/sh to dash without dash essential]

[not replying off-list because that seems counterproductive and arrogant] On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 03:49:15PM +, brian m. carlson wrote: Actually, if it's invoked as /bin/sh, it is supposed to be Bourne-compatible. That's my experience with the current version: Not much effort is put into