[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: #!/bin/bash

-> > it seems apache could run with ash for example w/o problems
-> > - it just needs change all
-> >
-> > echo -ne "blahblah\n"
-> > to
-> > echo "blahblah"
-> >
-> > (wtf do we need the first?)
-> The first doesn't take a new line so it's possible to do this:
-> echo -ne "Restarting apache web server: "

"echo -n" is enough for this and works even in ash

-> <some stuff>
-> echo "done"
-> And get this output:
-> Restarting apache web server: done
-> instead of this
-> Restarting apache web server:
-> done
-> And anyway, why would you want to insist on 'ash' ?

faster, smaller etc.  it could be ksh or whatever does /bin/sh point to.

-> The two shells that are installed on EVERY Debian system by default (from
-> the base2_2.tgz tarball) are 'sh' and 'bash'.

sh ios just symlink to bash. And bach sucks imho and I'd like to avoid it
and not to be depending on it.

-> sh doesn't always provide the features scripts need, but bash does, and
-> thus it's the default for most scripts, because we can guarantee it will
-> be present without needing a Depends: ash line for each .deb.

that's it, i don't like scripts that "require" bash if they don't have to.

 Matus "fantomas" Uhlar, sysadmin at NEXTRA, Slovakia; IRCNET admin of *.sk
 uhlar@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ ; http://www.nextra.sk/
 I intend to live forever - so far so good. 

Reply to: