[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: list of bashisms



I would imagine that the sensible approach would be to script only with
features found in both ash and bash.  This would also make you ksh
safe if someone were to propigate the susV stupidity of installing ksh
as sh.

Costa

   From: mbaker@iee.org (Mark Baker)
   Subject: Re: list of bashisms
   To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
   Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 13:41:19 +0100
   
   
   In article <19970518120634.50114@asm21.emma.cam.ac.uk>,
   	Andy Mortimer <andy.mortimer@poboxes.com> writes:
   > There has just been a long list of bugs against packages using `bashisms'
   > in their scripts, and I can certainly remember this issue coming up
   > before. But I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly have no idea
   > what features are available in the `original sh'.
   
   Lots. The small handful of features that are in bash and not in ksh93 should
   not be used, but I can't see any reason to stay compatible with ten year old
   versions of sh when the posix standard isn't exactly new anymore.
   .
   
   
   --
   TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
   debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
   Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
   


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .


Reply to: