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

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 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

Reply to: