Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >yes but a much more portable way to do this is to use printf: > >printf "Restarting apache web server: " ><some stuff> >echo "done" > >echo is notoriously inconsistent across *nix platforms. and the SUS >(single unix specification) has or at least did mandate that echo >should interpret no command line switches, when potato was unstable >ash was altered to follow that, but had to be reverted since the >startup process started looking like this: > >-ne Restarting apache web server: >done > >but ash asside you can't depend on echo doing anything but echoing >plain text with a trailing newline, thats all it does consistently. >anything special use printf instead.
Yes you can, at least in Debian. The policy specifically requires that anything that might be installed as /bin/sh can deal with 'echo -n', mainly because it's so widely used. I don't think -e is required. >> And anyway, why would you want to insist on 'ash' ? > >its smaller, faster and just does posix. i can think of no reason why >ANY initscript requires a bashism, you can do some really complicated >things in pure posix that work perfectly in ash. Like shoop ... >initscripts should be plain posix shell scripts with no bashisms, and >should have #!/bin/sh as the interpreter, this way you can link >/bin/sh to ash without any problems. (this is perfectly allowable, >and i think is even a config question on woody's ash) > >if the script DOES have a bashism then it should have #!/bin/bash so a >non-bash /bin/sh does not break it. but using #!/bin/bash for no good >reason is just lame. Yeah, it's certainly a valid wishlist bug to ask that any given script be made to work with /bin/sh, and at least a normal bug if it declares /bin/sh but isn't. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
