-> > it seems apache could run with ash for example w/o problems -> > - it just needs change all -> > -> > echo -ne "blahblah\n" -> > to -> > echo "blahblah" -> > -> > (wtf do we need the first?) -> -> The first doesn't take a new line so it's possible to do this: -> -> echo -ne "Restarting apache web server: "
"echo -n" is enough for this and works even in ash -> <some stuff> -> echo "done" -> -> And get this output: -> -> Restarting apache web server: done -> -> instead of this -> -> Restarting apache web server: -> done -> -> And anyway, why would you want to insist on 'ash' ? faster, smaller etc. it could be ksh or whatever does /bin/sh point to. -> The two shells that are installed on EVERY Debian system by default (from -> the base2_2.tgz tarball) are 'sh' and 'bash'. sh ios just symlink to bash. And bach sucks imho and I'd like to avoid it and not to be depending on it. -> sh doesn't always provide the features scripts need, but bash does, and -> thus it's the default for most scripts, because we can guarantee it will -> be present without needing a Depends: ash line for each .deb. that's it, i don't like scripts that "require" bash if they don't have to. -- Matus "fantomas" Uhlar, sysadmin at NEXTRA, Slovakia; IRCNET admin of *.sk [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ ; http://www.nextra.sk/ I intend to live forever - so far so good.
