Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 21:08 +0100, David Weinehall wrote: > > You can use whatever bashisms you like when you're working > > interactively, that won't hinder dash from executing shells on boot and > > elsewhere. Using bashisms in scripts does however cause a problem. > > I think it's time to realize that "bash" specifies a programming > language, and so does "dash". > > Instead of focusing and hammering again and again on /bin/sh, why not > instead ask maintainers to do #!/bin/dash?
Because the correct is #!/bin/sh and not to be tied on particular shell. > > Oh, and there *are* other suitable interactive shells than bash. tcsh, > > ksh, zsh, rc... Whether any of these actually consume less memory than > > bash, I cannot say, since I'm a bash user myself on the desktop. Yet > > all the scripts I write run perfectly well (and faster) in dash. > > I said that dash was not a substitute for bash, by its own claim. This > is like a game of whackamole. If the claim is made that dash involves > less disk space or memory use, it's nearly irrelevant, because bash will > be there anyway. Bash is not there "nayway". It is posisble to substitute it for the reasons explained (memory consumption), without any significant loss of interactive functionality. > There may well be advantages to dash for this or that application. So > then, maintainers should be encouraged to use it. The best way, of > course, is #!/bin/dash. The point was making script sh-agnostic. dash is just an implementation of sh. Someone may very well use busybox or /bin/posh. Jari -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
