Re: /bin/sh vs. /bin/bash
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 to be considered as a bug and should I report it?
>  the using of non-sh features in a script started with #!/bin/sh
> Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe email@example.com < /dev/null
Linux, because I'd like to *get there* today