Re: more ash/dash/bash questions
On 2008-05-07 18:39 +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 08:44:34PM +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
>> Umm, well, if /bin/sh points to dash/ash and you write a script with
>> bashisms then you have to have #!/bin/bash as the interpreter line. The
>> reason there was talk about it, is that traditionally /bin/sh pointed to
>> /bin/bash and so it wouldn't matter if you used bashisms or not. Now,
>
> I was always wondering about this. I thought bash behaved differently
> (as in POSIX) when called as sh.
While it changes its startup and behaves somewhat differently, it does
*not* disable non-POSIX extensions.
>> /bin/sh is going to point to dash for reasons of bootup speed and I
>> suppose also (eventually) to not force the installation of bash, as it
>> is a bit of a resource hog, although this last part is just a guess.
>
> I think bash will remain a high priority package as it is a better
> choice as a default shell *than dash/ash* (no flamewars please) for
> normal users.
Bash will remain an essential package for many years to come, yes.
There are simply too many packages that ship bash scripts.
As for the interactive use, nobody in their right state of mind would
use dash, but many don't use bash either. The ultimate interactive
shell for power users seems to be zsh (which uses even more resources
than bash, but that hardly matters on halfway recent systems).
Sven
Reply to: