Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two
On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 09:51:37AM +0200, Jari Aalto <jari.aalto@cante.net> wrote:
> And this is only possible if scripts use
>
> /bin/sh
>
> The /bin/sh could be any valid shell that provided the standard set
> of features.
>
> The installation system ("Essential") which sets /bin/sh to point to
> /bin/bash in this respect has been a bad choice because people are not
> aware of the bashinm they might be using as a result of it.
Maybe bash should restrict its features when called sh... like gzip
changes its features when called gunzip, etc.
Mike
Reply to:
- References:
- Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two
- From: Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net>
- Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two
- From: Jari Aalto <jari.aalto@cante.net>
- Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two
- From: Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net>
- Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two
- From: Jari Aalto <jari.aalto@cante.net>
- Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two
- From: Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net>
- Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two
- From: David Weinehall <tao@debian.org>
- Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two
- From: Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net>
- Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two
- From: Jari Aalto <jari.aalto@cante.net>
- Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two
- From: Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net>
- Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two
- From: Jari Aalto <jari.aalto@cante.net>