Re: ash vs. bash
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 20 Jul 1999 02:37:16 +0100 (BST), Julian Gilbey wrote:
>I do not see this as a worthwhile task. Scripts which are POSIX
>compliant /bin/sh scripts can use ash, but there's little point in
>bending over backwards to force bash scripts to be POSIX compliant
>/bin/sh scripts when they can just use bash instead.
Except for systems that don't have bash, which is the whole point of an
exercise.
The rc.d scripts I've got on my two systems work perfectly.
Can you explain why one would want an interactive shell doing
non-interactive work and vice versa? To be honest, I never really got the
logic of having scripting build into an interactive shell since they serve
two different purposes.
- --
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
- -------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.0 (C) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc
iQA/AwUBN5PpRXpf7K2LbpnFEQLMWQCeKBSy2u2e9qPuXWt1WFvDc84jv3IAoJIx
zEiW1dMkir5akm3wR5XF5uRQ
=XFcT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: