Re: /bin/sh vs. /bin/bash

[Shaleh <shaleh@livenet.net>]

Yes, if it calls sh, it should only use sh features.  Report a bug. 
Please show which line fails and if possible a way to make it sh
compliant.  I use ash as my /bin/sh w/o a hitch.  apt has a small bug
that is only cosmetic.

Torsten Hilbrich wrote:
> 
> I recently installed an other shell than bash as /bin/sh (ash
> precisly) just to test the systems behaviour and noticed that some
> scripts stopped working correctly.  For example, /etc/init.d/rcS had
> problems executing some scripts (e.g., loading the keymap).  I changed
> it to be #!/bin/bash instead of #!/bin/sh.
> 
> The problem is that sh (as link to bash) still have some more features
> than the standard bourne shell (ash is the NetBSD implementation of sh
> according to its description).
> 
> Is this[1] to be considered as a bug and should I report it?
> 
>         Torsten
> 
> Footnotes:
> [1] the using of non-sh features in a script started with #!/bin/sh
> 
> --
> Unsubscribe?  mail -s unsubscribe debian-user-request@lists.debian.org < /dev/null

-- 
=====
Linux, because I'd like to *get there* today