Re: ash vs. bash
On Fri, Jul 23, 1999 at 05:48:16PM +0000, Norbert Nemec wrote:
>I did the change, too a couple days ago. Everything worked fine but for one
>thing: In the debian/rules file of one package I put together, I obviously have
>some bashianisms:
>
> cp -a -P System/Common/{*.c,*.h,*.module,CONFIG} $(sather_home);
>
(...)
>* how many makefiles (especially debian/rules) may there be that contain
> such bashianisms and may stay undetected for a long time, because they are
> ony executed by a small number of people.
I agree. That's why I think that the easiest thing to do is probably
leave bash as required and enforce using #!/bin/bash in configuration
scripts that require bash constructs. I think that developers should
always test their scripts also with 'ash -n scriptname' and try and make
them truly bourne-compatible. The installation/upgrade procedure of bash
should be changed to preserve a /bin/sh link that is found to point at
something different than bash.
bye
--
Carlo Strozzi PGP Public Key fingerprint :
ED 4A 7A 6C 88 66 1B 34 06 14 FC 2E C7 EA F2 EE
Against software patents:
http://www.freepatents.org , http://no-patents.prosa.it
Reply to: