-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On 6 Mar 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Herbert> Yes but unless you actually require any non-POSIX features, > Herbert> you should use /bin/sh (this is specified by the policy). > Herbert> And currently I don't see anything like that in your scripts. > > Where? I do not see this in policy. > ______________________________________________________________________ > The standard shell interpreter ``/bin/sh'' may be a symbolic link to > any POSIX compatible shell. Thus, shell scripts specifying ``/bin/sh'' > as interpreter may only use POSIX features. If a script requires > non-POSIX features from the shell interpreter, the appropriate shell > has to be specified in the first line of the script (e.g., > ``#!/bin/bash'') and the package has to depend on the package > providing the shell (unless the shell package is marked `Essential', > e.g., in the case of bash). > > Restrict your script to POSIX features when possible so that it may > use `/bin/sh' as its interpreter. If your script works with ash, it's > probably POSIX compliant, but if you are in doubt, use `/bin/bash'. > ______________________________________________________________________ > > Where does it say I *have* to use /bin/sh? It tells me to > stick to POSIX features so it _could_ be used with /bin/sh. Nothing > says I have to use /bin/sh. As far as I know, "Restrict" in the above paragraph is a verb in imperative form. There is no point in trying to make a script POSIX compliant "so that it may use `/bin/sh' as its interpreter" if you do not end up actually setting /bin/sh as its interpreter when it is possible to do so. I think the policy is very clear about this, since it says at the very beginning: "The *standard* shell interpreter ``/bin/sh'' ..." This means /bin/sh is the rule and /bin/bash should be the exception. The policy also says when you have to use the exception: Only when the script uses non-POSIX features. It is true that policy says "in doubt, use /bin/bash", but if somebody tells you it works with ash, I think you should believe him at least. > I have no idea why you are on this crusade; but leave my > packages out of the /bin/sh politics. Or change policy. The policy have already been changed to encourage /bin/sh over /bin/bash. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: latin1 iQCVAgUBNQEzBSqK7IlOjMLFAQFA1wQApHqjHDmkxtjJTHzcsJMpBXImasklweN/ 6iUPP0MIICFkTuYzdVneQwSTmg3Jlc7AL35zmB2Glk0jhZ5h4T1xi0cv7ucJfja7 7QrngAf92gCYV/VASbeyBiVJ2Wh9P933qjt4XmyhUdYIxLMcuE1+k0f4VkYthIyV EBAI1UnaE0c= =IPbN -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
