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

Re: ash vs. bash



On Sat, Jul 24, 1999 at 10:57:54AM +0200, Carlo Strozzi wrote:
> 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. 

That's simply not adequate. There are not just syntax differences
between the shells, there are logical differences as well. That's why I
refuse to screw with /bin/sh on production systems even though I use ash
on my own machine: there are almost certainly scripts out there with
little-used code paths which will behave differently under ash than
under bash, _even though they are syntactically valid in ash_. There's
too much uncertainty at this point to change the default. (Although I
agree that if _I_ change /bin/sh, bash ought to keep its hands off it.)

Mike Stone

Attachment: pgp47rPuUNfRJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: