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'. On May 19, Mark Baker wrote > 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.
If scripts require bash features, they should be written #!/bin/bash, there's plenty of performance reasons to use something other than bash for /bin/sh -- Raul -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
