Re: /bin/sh as an alternative

[Brian White <bcwhite@verisim.com>]

> > 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'd say that it must be fully POSIX compliant to be allowed as /bin/sh.

                                          Brian
                                 ( bcwhite@verisim.com )

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In theory, theory and practice are the same.  In practice, they're not.