Re: shells present on an LSB system

[alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox)]

> 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

Thats a minor issue. What about all the commercial software currently
working and installing on vendor distributions that breaks with bash2
as /bin/sh.

A "/bin/sh" will change decree breaks it all unneccessarily. Why not
let people who require a precisely defined posix shell specify /bin/posixsh

> 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.

Definitely - but why call it /bin/sh ?

>  
> And /bin/csh should be tcsh, nobody maintains csh.

Again hazardous to compatibility. Metamail wont be the only thing that the
change in quoting rules leaves misfunctioning. If there isnt a csh why
not have no /bin/csh. 

Alan