Re: shells present on an LSB system
Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes:
> 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 POSIX, and the POSIX conforming shells are not fast
enough in certain applications, then there are some other options,
including:
- changing the first line of those scripts where bash 2 is too slow
- changing /bin/sh and accepting potential problems that come with
not having a LSB compliant system.
- fixing bash 2 (or pdksh) to be faster
(a bit of flexibility)
If size is the main issue (such as a boot floppy router), then the
system isn't an LSB target anyway, and we don't care about what shell
is sitting at /bin/sh.
The other issue is that many shell scripts already use POSIX features
(such as provided by bash 1). If we fail to require a POSIX /bin/sh,
and we've have to figure out which POSIX features are okay and which
aren't. Also, some Linux distributions will start deploying bash 2.
And then there is the issue of referencing a /bin/sh standard. If not
POSIX, then a predecessor. Maybe the XPG3 Shell specifcation, as
suggested by Andrew Josey.
I'd like us to specify POSIX.2 in the draft for now.
And /bin/csh should be tcsh, nobody maintains csh.
- Dan
Reply to: