Re: /bin/sh as an alternative
On Thu, Jan 15, 1998 at 01:05:45AM +0100, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Adam P. Harris wrote:
>
> >
> > [Sorry to be offtopic a bit]
> >
> > "Remco" == Remco Blaakmeer <remco@Cal011205.student.utwente.nl> writes:
> > > I also think the
> > > link /bin/sh could be perfectly managed by the `alternatives'
> > > system, with the `smallest' shell (in terms of memory and processor
> > > requirements) having the highest priority.
> >
> > How about "most standard", i.e., most in accordance w/ POSIX? ;)
> > Anyone have any information about the POSIXability of different
> > shells, their indices of POSIXal correctness? Of course, bash behaves
> > different when invoked as /bin/sh compared to /bin/bash.
>
> I think these two criteria would set the same shell at the highest
> priority. The one that has the least (or none) features that are not in
> POSIX would be the smallest, I think. Of course, every shell providing
> 'posix-shell' would have to be at least POSIX-correct.
I think that the shell should also run in "POSIX-mode" if it is invoked as
sh - bash does this, I don't know about the others. I don't think it's very
nice if we have to start doing things like "sh --posix ..." to get a POSIX
shell.
Adrian
email: adrian.bridgett@poboxes.com | Debian Linux - www.debian.org
http://www.poboxes.com/adrian.bridgett | Because bloated, unstable
PGP key available on public key servers | operating systems are from MS
Reply to: