> I'm not sure I follow. I' puzzled why you do not seem benefit in: > > - Making scripts sh-agnostict. That is making them portable > - Supporting low end systems with minimal of effort > - Improving the overall awaress of shells I don't care about the "awareness" of shells, no. If we can support low end systems with *minimal* effort, fine, but you are asking lots of *extra* effort. I don't care about making anything sh-agnostic. bash is just a language; dash is just a language. We don't insist that our C programs be C-compiler-agnostic; we don't insist that lisp or scheme programs be dialect-agnostic; why should we insist this for shell programs? If a maintainer wants to make a script that works with dash and posh and busybox, they can do that too. They can even have a debconf option that asks the user which #! line to use. None of this requires this obsessive nattering about /bin/sh. Thomas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part