Re: shells present on an LSB system
On Tue, 8 Dec 1998, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > 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.
>From the applications perspective, if only /bin/sh is guaranteed to be
present, then that is all an application can use. There is no need to
specify the other shells if they are optional.
> This got discussed in Atlanta. There is a strong feeling /bin/sh shouldnt
> be posix guaranteed (since only bash 2 and the commercial ksh are). Also
> a lot of people like something small and fast running their default
> scripts.
If /bin/sh is not POSIX.2 conforming, then somone will have to write
a full specification of it's behaviour (or at least a formal delta against
POSIX.2), as well as a test suite based on this specification. By sticking
with POSIX.2, we can leverage what already exists.
Stuart
Stuart R. Anderson anderson@metrolink.com
Metro Link Incorporated South Carolina Office
4711 North Powerline Road 105 Fox Ridge Run
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309 Lexington, SC 29072
voice: 954.938.0283 voice: 803.951.3630
fax: 954.938.1982 SkyTel: 800.405.3401
http://www.metrolink.com/
Reply to: