Re: UNIX shells - Bourne and C
Nathan E Norman <nnorman@incanus.net> wrote:
>
> ash is supposed to be POSIX compliant, and according to the package
> description it makes a better /bin/sh because it is smaller. However
> I beleive there are some Bourne shell features not present in ash (I
> don't have a reference for that, it's from memory which may be
> faulty).
Please don't spread FUD. I certainly am not aware of any missing
features relevant for shell scripts.
--
Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
Reply to: