John Summerfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>> IMHO, it would be a very good idea to have a 100% posix-compliant /bin/
>> sh without any extensions. /bin/sh should *not* be symlinked to /bin/
>> bash.
> Did you read the documentation?
> Here's another fragment:
> Major Differences From The SVR4.2 Bourne Shell
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> * Bash is POSIX-conformant, even where the POSIX specification
> differs from traditional `sh' behavior.
Yes, I know that bash is POSIX-conformant but my point was that it is
*more* than POSIX-conformant allowing people to write #!/bin/sh
shell scripts that other POSIX-conformant shells won't execute. E.g.
bash has some ksh(1) extensions etc...
Thilo
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
e-business manager innominate AG
the linux architects
tel: +49-30-308806-0 fax: -77 www.innominate.com
_______________________________________________
Redhat-devel-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-devel-list
