Hi,
>>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Santiago> On 7 Mar 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Anyway, bash is essential, /bin/bash shall always be there, using
>> /bin/bash shall never cause any problems,
Santiago> That argument is also not convincing at all.
Sorry. It convinces me, though.
Santiago> If you really believe what you are saying, then please
Santiago> suggest a change in the policy so that /bin/bash is *always*
Santiago> recommended.
As Guy said, the Policy states the intent of the discussion we
had here: It is *nice* to use /bin/sh, but do *NOT* use .bin/sh if
there is any chance that your script may fail on other machines;
since /bin/sh may be any Bourne shell implementation that meets POSIX
requirements.
So, the Policy is to *PREVENT* people from using /bin/sh when
they *should* be using /bin/bash, while noting that it would be
*nice* to restrict oneself to use just POSIXism's.
There is *NO* requirement to use /bin/sh at all (the downside
being that your script is less portable, and is not a /bin/sh
script).
I understand that. My scripts are Bash scripts, since I code
in bash, at the moment. Bash is Essential. /bin/bash shall always
exist. There are no problems unless I move the scripts to use
/bin/sh, and /bin/sh happens to be an incompatible shell. (ins't rc
a POSIX shell too?). I think that is a potential point of failure, as
long as I am still extending the scripts, anyway.
manoj
--
Crazee Edeee, his prices are INSANE!!!
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
