Re: ash vs. bash (was: IFS behaviour)
On Mon, Aug 09, 1999 at 10:42:42AM +0200, Paul Slootman wrote:
>it. ksh, ash, and bash all do it differently however.
>
>Here's the relevant quote from the ash manpage thats (in my
>understanding of it) supports my argument:
(...)
Hi, let me depart from this to remind that I am the one who started
the original ash vs. bash thread. I have already posted a similar
message but I have the impression that it never hit the list, so I
repost it now.
I would really like that we didn't let the discussion fade away and we
came out with either a 'yes' or 'no' answer. I have now been running
with /bin/sh -> /bin/ash for a couple of weeks now, both on test and
on productions systems, across a few apt-get and dselect, and the only
problems that I had were (predictably) with scripts that begin with
#!/bin/sh and then use bash constructs like the tilde expansion for
user homes (~user), arithmetic forms like $((...)) and name expansions
{a,b,c}.
Linking sh to ash would help to enforce debian's policy of having bash
scripts begin with #!/bin/bash. That enforcement not withstanding,
developers often make the mistake of assuming that /bin/sh always be
bash. The switch would also represent IMHO another plus of debian
with respect to all other distributions that I know of, both speed-
and efficiency-wise, and POSIX-wise.
I realize that being 'potato' for imminent release there are other more
urgent problems, but I would like to rise a "formal" issue nevertheless,
although I don't know the exact procedure, not being a debian developer
myself.
Bye
--
Carlo Strozzi
Key fingerprint = CF22 C843 2D81 11D2 DE54 CD02 8FA4 9A94 2483 9893
Against software patents:
http://www.freepatents.org - http://no-patents.prosa.it
Reply to: