<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Andrew Haley wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:48457ABD.3000506@redhat.com" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Martin Buchholz wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 1:22 AM, Andrew Haley <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:aph@redhat.com"><aph@redhat.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">But if one of our scripts actually needs bash (not just sh) why not use
#!/bin/bash ?
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">sh is a horrible programming language whose primary virtue is
portability -- every Unix system since the dark ages has it.
Much of that is lost when replacing #!/bin/sh with #!/bin/bash.
Might as well upgrade to a "real" programming language.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Sure, but this bug seems to suggest that we *already* rely on
/bin/bash, but we pretend not to by assuming that /bin/sh runs
bash. If we rely on bash, let's be straight about it.
Andrew.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
er.. there's a little more to it than that, methinks.<br>
<br>
First, because it's /bin/sh that's portable (not /bin/bash) I believe
the shell scripts should be written for compatibility with /bin/sh<br>
<br>
Second, it's an open question whether dash or bash does a better job of
implementing /bin/sh and I have no clue as to which does the better job.<br>
<br>
I think it's either a) fix the script in question or b) fix dash.<br>
<br>
<tongue-in-cheek> BTW does anybody know where to get a SHCK?
(/bin/sh Compatibility Kit) How can we be sure any /bin/sh interpreter
is actually compatible with /bin/sh ?? </tongue-in-cheek><br>
<br>
- David Herron<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>