Re: shells present on an LSB system
On Dec 8, 11:20am in "Re: shells present o", Stuart Anderson wrote:
> >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.
>
Agreed.
> > 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.
>
Agreed , otherwise we can only guarantee a shell named
/bin/sh with unspecified behaviour.
Prior to the POSIX.2 shell definition we had the XPG3 Shell spec,
which is the traditional System V Bourne shell with functions.
I'm not sure i can locate machine readable off hand (it was 1988)
but will look into it if its of interest.
regards
Andrew
Reply to: