I would imagine that the sensible approach would be to script only with
features found in both ash and bash. This would also make you ksh
safe if someone were to propigate the susV stupidity of installing ksh
as sh.
Costa
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Baker)
Subject: Re: list of bashisms
To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 13:41:19 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Andy Mortimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There has just been a long list of bugs against packages using `bashisms'
> in their scripts, and I can certainly remember this issue coming up
> before. But I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly have no idea
> what features are available in the `original sh'.
Lots. The small handful of features that are in bash and not in ksh93 should
not be used, but I can't see any reason to stay compatible with ten year old
versions of sh when the posix standard isn't exactly new anymore.
.
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
