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:
pgpcth10zenH2.pgp
Description: PGP signature