On Thu, Jul 30, 1998 at 11:24:27PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Hi, > > [I am going to be in hot water for this one] naw ;) > I am disturbed by the several suggestions about making /bin/sh > a small, minimalist shell that offers just bare bones POSIX > environments and eschews some common shell practices for Linux (where > full featuresd shells have served as /bin/sh for the most part). As one of the peopel who suggested a "strict POSIX compliant shell made to break anything using non-POSIX extensions" I actually agree with you. I DO think we should have such a shell...and we should sym link /bin/sh to it for testin gpurposes (just basically to see what breaks) The idea being that the user can change /bin/sh and POSIX complience is the "fundamental assumption" we are allowing ourselves to make about /bin/sh > So while POSIX compliance is a disired goal, the shell should > not be unfriendly to non POSIX scripts, just like browsers parse > legal HTML, but they do their levbel best to accomodate bad HTML. <Htrgbeh> absolutely agreed </Htrgbeh> -Steve -- ** Stephen Carpenter ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** sjc@delphi.com ** "All authority is quite degrading." -- Oscar Wilde
Attachment:
pgpQ0EknNxXNW.pgp
Description: PGP signature