Re: Password file with over 3000 users.
On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 08:05:33PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 05:44:40AM -0400, Roberto C. S?nchez wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 05:39:29PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > >
> > > in short, don't do unneccessary harm and don't violate the principle
> > > of least surprise.
> > This is *exactly* one of the things that they are trying to fix.
> no, it's not. if it was, then they wouldn't be making the proposal.
Isn't this all about posix compliance.
(1) /bin/sh is supposed to be posix compliant.
(2) /bin/bash is not necessarily posix compliant because of bash extensions.
(3) If /bin/sh is sym linked to /bin/bash and a script is called with
the /bin/sh shebang, bash tries to behave in a posix compliant manner
and therefore if the script has bash extensions it will (should(?))
break and therefore the script should be called with the /bin/bash
shebang so the script can use bashisms.
(4) If /bin/sh is linked to /bin/dash or /bin/ash then posix compliance
is achieved because /bin/dash and /bin/ash are posix compliant shells.
(5) Debian is striving to be fully posix compliant.