martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] said on Fri, 21 May 2004 01:39:55 +0200:
--ikeVEW9yuYc//A+q
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
also sprach Martin McCormick [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004.05.20.2126 +=
0200]:
Is it just more efficient in resources to use plain #! /bin/sh
rather than bash?
No, it just makes your script more portable to systems that might not
have bash.
Some systems that /do/ have bash installed have /bin/sh linked to it,
but some don't have bash by default or choice (Solaris,
A response to another poster peaked my curiosity.
Incidentally, there is no reason to make it a bash
script rather than vanilla sh, and you can simplify the script by using
exec:
I have been writing shell scripts for a bit over fourteen
years so I am not new to this, but I
also sprach Martin McCormick [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004.05.20.2126 +0200]:
Is it just more efficient in resources to use plain #! /bin/sh
rather than bash?
surely not. /bin/sh is generally linked to bash (... by default,
that is).
--
Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them!
4 matches
Mail list logo