Le Tue, 17 Dec 2013 16:58:57 +0100, Diggory Hardy <li...@dhardy.name> a écrit :
> Replying because this is a good question and not fully answered... > > The problem is not standards but compatibility, as stated. > > What was not mentioned is that Debian switched the default /bin/sh > implementation from bash to a simpler POSIX shell (I think dash) not > so long ago. Naturally, they had similiar compatibility issues — but > were able to fix the scripts which actually broke. Sure, a script that start with #!/bin/sh must be tested with a sh compatible shell, not with bash. > > I don't think any of the systems I have installed recently had an > 'open' command installed by default (I always alias this to xdg-open > on my systems). If the 'open' alias is removed, a few scripts may > break here and there, and people will fix them (to use less generic > names like 'openvt' or whatever). > > Usage of generic/short names in scripts is inappropriate anyway, IMO. > For example, typing 'tar xaf xyz.tar.xz' on an interactive command > line is fine, but in a script long options (--extract, etc) should be > used. In fact, if there was a way to enforce this type of thing in > scripts then it ought to be used — along these lines I always head > scripts #!/bin/sh not #!/bin/bash. When I need array variables, I use #!/bin/bash because bash is much more convenient for that. I can even use #!/bin/bash with big scripts just because my favourite distribution is using bash by default, and I don't necessarily have the time to test them in virtualbox with Debian. So anyway, bash is here to stay. > > TLDR: this can be changed and should be, IMO. > > On Monday 16 December 2013 04:03:57 Robert Qualls wrote: > > ... _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list xdg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
