John Summerfield wrote:
> > On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, Kevin Waterson wrote:
> >
> > > Why is bash2 not the default for rh 6.1
> >
> > Compatibility issues.
> > bash 2.x is somewhat more strict about POSIX compliance, for example
> >
> > { ls }
> >
> > used to work in 1.x, but 2.x forces strict POSIX, so it has to be
> >
> > { ls; }
> >
> > Since a lot of older shell scripts depend on bash 1 brokenness, we decided
> > to stick with 1.x for now.
> >
> > > Is there plans to implement this at a further date
> >
> > Yes. 7.0, probably.
>
> Should have been 6.0; the incompatibility issue HAS to be addressed and it
> WIL NOT get better because people will keep coding broken code and adding
> to the problem until the issue's fixed properly.
>
> bash2 was MOT one of RHS's better ideas.
>
MOT?
Kevin
--
To unsubscribe:
mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
