Re: ash vs. bash
According to Michael Stone:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 1999 at 11:43:20PM +0200, Fabien Tassin wrote:
> > (*) with /bin/sh -> bash, there's no way to obtain a shell if you lose /lib.
> That's what the cdrom is for.
I tend to disagree here. I have several racked servers running Debian
bo/hamm/slink (and other OSes too) that have no cdrom drive available.
> I don't think this argument is all that
> relevant. (If you really want a static shell, take a look at sash--it
> also replicates the functionality of other programs, so you can actually
> do somthing useful with it. If you lose /lib, /bin/sh by itself doesn't
> buy you a whole lot.)
probably but last time it occured (a libc problem), I was happy to be able
to find a static shell.
> > (**) to be sure that scripts written with this shell will work on other
> > Un*x (Solaris, Irix, HP-UX, etc..).
> You've obviously got more respect for cross-vendor compatability than I
I often have to write shell scripts that must work on several Unixes.
I can't use bashisms because bash is not available everywhere. I just
need compatibility that is not provided by our /bin/sh :((
Unfortunatly, there's no way to get rid of bash in all Debian dists
because of all the packages that depend on it without any other reason
that no stand alone sh are available. This brings us to the inital subject...
we can't switch from bash to ash/ksh/zsh/etc without breaking everyting :(
Fabien Tassin -+- firstname.lastname@example.org