Re: /bin/sh as an alternative
On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Adam P. Harris wrote:
>
> [Sorry to be offtopic a bit]
>
> "Remco" == Remco Blaakmeer <remco@Cal011205.student.utwente.nl> writes:
> > I also think the
> > link /bin/sh could be perfectly managed by the `alternatives'
> > system, with the `smallest' shell (in terms of memory and processor
> > requirements) having the highest priority.
>
> How about "most standard", i.e., most in accordance w/ POSIX? ;)
> Anyone have any information about the POSIXability of different
> shells, their indices of POSIXal correctness? Of course, bash behaves
> different when invoked as /bin/sh compared to /bin/bash.
I think these two criteria would set the same shell at the highest
priority. The one that has the least (or none) features that are not in
POSIX would be the smallest, I think. Of course, every shell providing
'posix-shell' would have to be at least POSIX-correct.
The "most standard" is fine with me, though.
Remco
Reply to: