On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 11:29:47PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 05:27:23PM -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote: > > This option also might imply some extra bugs, but it's believed that > > not so many, since there are already quite a number of people with > > /bin/sh -> /bin/dash, and they do file bugs when "bashisms" appear. > > It's also influencing the whole system, including any #!/bin/sh scripts > that anyone might have installed locally. It's very easy to make a > bashism that then will fail to work with /bin/sh, I think the risk of > breaking things of users is way too high for me to consider this. Bash > is a very decent all-round shell.
Many non-Linux systems don't even have bash *installed* by default. FreeBSD, for example, comes with a POSIX-compatible /bin/sh which is not bash. Since bash does enable some features that are not specified in POSIX, even when called as /bin/sh, I don't see what the problem would be of installing "something else" as our default /bin/sh (ignoring the fact that only bash is Essential: yes for a second). It would greatly improve portability of said non-Debian scripts. -- Fun will now commence -- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
