Re: POSIX shell; bash ash pdksh & /bin/sh
On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Manoj wrote:
> > And I do not think that we are
> > required to make it easy for people to remove essential packages.
> But this is the circular argument again!
> Once bash is non-essential, we would not risk the system at all by
> removing it since it would not be essential anymore!
This argument is just a circular ;-)
Renaming bash as "non-essential" does not, in fact, change whatever
essential nature bash has, it simply tries to ignore whatever essential
nature bash may have. How is this an improvement?
Getting bash to behave "properly" when called as /bin/sh seems to be a
more productive approach than shoehorning some other "POSIXLY_CORRECT"
shell in its place of it that incorporates a different set of "bugs" into
the shell scripting system.
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org