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

Re: ash vs. bash

On Fri, Jul 23, 1999 at 05:48:16PM +0000, Norbert Nemec wrote:
 >I did the change, too a couple days ago. Everything worked fine but for one
 >thing: In the debian/rules file of one package I put together, I obviously have
 >some bashianisms:
 >	cp -a -P System/Common/{*.c,*.h,*.module,CONFIG} $(sather_home);
 >* how many makefiles (especially debian/rules) may there be that contain
 >  such bashianisms and may stay undetected for a long time, because they are
 >  ony executed by a small number of people.

I agree. That's why I think that the easiest thing to do is probably 
leave bash as required and enforce using #!/bin/bash in configuration
scripts that require bash constructs. I think that developers should
always test their scripts also with 'ash -n scriptname' and try and make
them truly bourne-compatible. The installation/upgrade procedure of bash
should be changed to preserve a /bin/sh link that is found to point at
something different than bash.


Carlo Strozzi       PGP Public Key fingerprint :
ED 4A 7A 6C 88 66 1B 34  06 14 FC 2E C7 EA F2 EE

Against software patents:
http://www.freepatents.org , http://no-patents.prosa.it

Reply to: