Re: shells present on an LSB system
> > 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.
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.
Suggestions included having a /bin/lsbsh for a shell that meets the
lsb specific definitions
> > /bin/csh IF present, MUST be compatible (bugs excepted) with
> > the BSD C-shell. tcsh is specifically allowed.
Which BSD C-shell. The bugs vary by variant in very bad ways. Also
tcsh as csh shouldnt be acceptable. The quoting rules are different
and it causes security holes in things like metamail
> > /bin/ksh IF present, MUST match the Korn Shell specification
> > pdksh and ksh93 are specifically allowed.
>
> Is pdksh completely compatible with the original ksh?
no
> > /bin/bash IF present, MUST be the Bourne Again Shell from the
> > Free Software Foundation or a fully compatible
> > program.
v1 or v2 ?
> > /bin/tcsh IF present, MUST be tcsh 6 or later from Cornell
> > University or a fully compatible program.
Ok
Alan
Reply to: