> It could be difficult to implement a tool to analyze each script > if it includes bash dependencies or not. I just went through a discussion > with a few developers yesterday on irc about may be making /bin/sh > changeable with the update-alternatives approach. /bin/sh seems to be just > the default shell and it is unclear to me what functionality is > guaranteed. > /bin/bash is safe. I'd prefer it if we went with a strict Posix compliant Bourne shell (if one exists), and just file bugs against the offending packages. If somebody needs bash features, they should use #!/bin/bash. Perhaps somebody could point out a situation where /bin/sh really needs to be like /bin/bash. I can't see it. We should make the switch soon, so we have enough time to catch bug reports before the next major release. Cheers, - Jim
Attachment:
pgp00KRXrImyf.pgp
Description: PGP signature