On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 04:25:28PM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 11:52:01AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 09:40:06AM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
> > > > * bash, itself, is an Essential package, so you could just
> > > > s:#!/bin/sh:#!/bin/bash: and not care about portability.
> > >
> > > Please don't.
> >
> > Please do. Replacing adequete languages with less flexible ones for
> > *no reason* is stupid.
>
> Ahhh, but you conveniently snipped the reasons I provided.
You didn't give any, except the bogus "portability" one.
> And using
> bashisms for *no reason* is far more stupid...
No, "doing nothing", absent any reason to do something, is the
sensible approach.
> We're talking about
> removing one bashism in a script to make it more portable
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
False. Please come back when you have some comprehension of what
portable shell scripting means. There's a chapter in the autoconf
manual that might clue you in.
The only platform where /bin/sh is "reliably" a posix shell is
Debian. Deal with it.
> allow it to
> meet policy,
False dilemma; more trivially accomplished by using #!/bin/bash.
> and in the end allow drop-in replacement of smaller foot-print
> shells instead of bash,
Handwaving.
Please stop this pointless crusade against bash. All it can accomplish
is to introduce bugs where previously there were none. Throwing around
words like "portability" does not accomplish anything.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature