On 2/27/2017 7:51 PM, Steven Penny wrote: > On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 10:12:47, Duncan Roe wrote: >> "we" being you and who else? >> /bin/sh has been bash for a long time and I would prefer it stays that >> way. > > “That’s the way it’s always been done” is not a good reason to keep doing > something. /bin/sh has been defined for 20 years, and it is not Bash: > > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7908799/xcu/sh.html > > If you want to write a Bash script, you should be using #!/bin/bash, not > #!/bin/sh. If we are to continue using Bash, it should be for a good > reason, > like the one Eric presented, not just because you want to save 2 > characters on > your shebang line. >
Ironic that *you* should make the same argument for using #!/bin/bash as I've made to you about using #!/bin/dash. If you want to ensure that #!/bin/sh is a certain resemblance of a shell then you must test for it and take other actions if not. You cannot portably rely on /bin/sh having certain qualities but you know that already. Your argument is that dash is "more" POSIX conforming than bash as sh and faster because its footprint is smaller. Should we change, maybe give it a test before the next release. It really doesn't matter other than the work required to make it so and the work required to help those who get surprised. But that doesn't mean you should expect /bin/sh to be dash. The idea is only sound because it uses less resources and when we're talking about Windows a little resource makes a big difference. -- cyg Simple -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
