Re: shells present on an LSB system
H. Peter Anvin <hpa@transmeta.com> writes:
> I think the right thing is to specify something like this:
>
> /bin/sh MUST be present; SHALL be POSIX.2 conforming
> Shells specifically approved include: bash, ksh, ash?
I wonder if any shell other than bash will completely work in most
distributions as /bin/sh.
> /bin/csh IF present, MUST be compatible (bugs excepted) with
> the BSD C-shell. tcsh is specifically allowed.
>
> /bin/ksh IF present, MUST match the Korn Shell specification
> pdksh and ksh93 are specifically allowed.
Is pdksh completely compatible with the original ksh?
> /bin/bash IF present, MUST be the Bourne Again Shell from the
> Free Software Foundation or a fully compatible
> program.
>
> /bin/tcsh IF present, MUST be tcsh 6 or later from Cornell
> University or a fully compatible program.
I think we stop caring after this point. tcsh is no longer from
Cornell, btw. It's ftp.deshaw.com.
> /bin/zsh IF present, MUST be zsh ..?.. or a fully compatible
> program.
>
> /bin/ash IF present, MUST be ash from BSD ...?... or a fully
> compatible program.
>
> Any more shell names that should be reserved?
Some names are already reserved in FHS. This stuff probably belongs
there.
> As a general rule, shells should live in /bin or have symlinks from
> /bin.
Done in FHS, except for things like Perl and Tcl.
- Dan
Reply to: