Re: Policy Weekly Issue #4/1: Bash vs Bourne shell

[Santiago Vila Doncel <sanvila@unex.es>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Thu, 23 Oct 1997, Christian Schwarz wrote:

>      ``The shell `/bin/sh' may be symbolic link to any POSIX compatible
>      shell. If a script uses non-POSIX features the appropriate shell
>      has to be specified in the first line of the script (i.e.
>      `#!/bin/bash') and the package has to depend on the package
>      providing the shell (unless the shell package is marked
>      `Essential').''

This is ok, but I would object if it simply stops there. I think
something like the following would have to be added: ``For portability
reasons, you must use POSIX syntax wherever possible.''

Would be very nice also to add some hints about which bash features are
not POSIX compliant.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: latin1

iQCVAgUBNFBzKSqK7IlOjMLFAQFGygP9FBvDxcOBPlbdFwumq5vGBbCxUn5S/5+3
t3eGqb+cUwNM0cT7flFKxnXSK1jYcDtJSrEeFbwdKKCK0fbLijWbJb6dEuOGwLaF
t+WdpQQWx1+L2K8ceEfRBD3RnNNTxoRqvUN0qhBNHBqvV7prFZnhrPdOmO83Ij6n
8o45LNWUqxU=
=zvhe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----