> > I also think the
> > link /bin/sh could be perfectly managed by the `alternatives'
> > system, with the `smallest' shell (in terms of memory and processor
> > requirements) having the highest priority.
>
> How about "most standard", i.e., most in accordance w/ POSIX? ;)
> Anyone have any information about the POSIXability of different
> shells, their indices of POSIXal correctness? Of course, bash behaves
> different when invoked as /bin/sh compared to /bin/bash.
I'd say that it must be fully POSIX compliant to be allowed as /bin/sh.
Brian
( [EMAIL PROTECTED] )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not.
