On 9 Nov 2000, Brady Montz wrote:
> I care, and I agree that /bin/sh shouldn't use bash extensions.
<DIV class="AOL">Me too!</DIV>
I want bash available, since I like it as a login shell. This doesn't mean
I need or want that range of functionality from a default /bin/sh.
Extensions to that interface do nothing but create a nightmare for those
of us who have to deal with developers who don't realize that the
extension they just used isn't portable. Is there some overriding reason
why that much bloat is needed in /bin/sh, and in cases where it's needed,
why it can't be invoked as the more proper /bin/bash?
(To give some perspective: I'm administrating a software shop, supporting
three variants of Linux (plus three embedded releases), three versions of
Solaris, two versions of IRIX, two versions of HP-UX, two versions of AIX,
three version of FreeBSD, a couple of BSD/OS releases, an older version of
Digital UNIX/Tru64, and a half-dozen odd little obscure platforms. Cross-
platform compatibility is like the holy grail in a place like this, and
any litle effort to help with that, including fighting off feature creep
on core elements, makes my job MUCH easier.)
--
Edward S. Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> UNIX Administrator
http://www.nyx.net/~emarshal/ Mercantec, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Redhat-devel-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-devel-list
