>
> John Summerfield wrote:
> > I don't know which bash extensions caught me though. Perhaps those who
> > care should identify errors and take it up with the bash developers.
>
> I would argue that ideally if bash is run as "/bin/sh" that nothing
> beyond the POSIX "/bin/sh" specification sho
On 9 Nov 2000, Brady Montz wrote:
> I care, and I agree that /bin/sh shouldn't use bash extensions.
Me too!
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 cr
Matt Fahrner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> John Summerfield wrote:
> > I don't know which bash extensions caught me though. Perhaps those who
> > care should identify errors and take it up with the bash developers.
>
> I would argue that ideally if bash is run as "/bin/sh" that nothing
> beyon
John Summerfield wrote:
> I don't know which bash extensions caught me though. Perhaps those who
> care should identify errors and take it up with the bash developers.
I would argue that ideally if bash is run as "/bin/sh" that nothing
beyond the POSIX "/bin/sh" specification should function, t
>
> Ok, but looking at the particular case that brought this up I don't
> think it, as an example, does put Linux growth in jeopardy. Saying
> "/bin/sh" is POSIX bourne shell only doesn't stop any advancements for
> those who prefer bash. They can put "#! /bin/bash" on their shell
> scripts to g
> Can happen. In fact there are youngsters who pick BSDs because those
> people who are a few years older are using Linux.
This quintegenarian subscribed to a few FreeBSD lists. It's astonishing the
about of mail on them.
___
Redhat-devel-list m
> It is a pain in the to teach them not to
podex
___
Redhat-devel-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-devel-list
Matt Fahrner a écrit :
> JF Martinez wrote:
> > There is a thing you have to consider:and that is people coming to
> > Unix are not the only Linux usersa nd also there are more than one
> > hundred million people waiting to be "libearted" from Windows.
>
> Yes, I pray for them daily.
>
> > I fr
Hello,
had I not reading this list for quite a long time, I would
just say "Oh, another troll" :-)
> I frankly don't want to acept a thing as standard just
> because it is in Unix.
No. I want to accept it, because it is in Single Unix Specification.
You might think that the portability is nothi
JF Martinez wrote:
> There is a thing you have to consider:and that is people coming to
> Unix are not the only Linux usersa nd also there are more than one
> hundred million people waiting to be "libearted" from Windows.
Yes, I pray for them daily.
> I frankly don't want to acept a thing as
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:
>
Matt Fahrner a écrit :
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > In other words: when standard Linux programs are superior to the
> > Posix/Unix standard then to hell with POSIX and UNIX. It is now to
> > them to adopt _our_ standards.
>
> Nothing personal, but I think this is a bad attitude. Not only is i
[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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In other words: when standard Linux programs are superior to the
> Posix/Unix standard then to hell with POSIX and UNIX. It is now to
> them to adopt _our_ standards.
Nothing personal, but I think this is a bad attitude. Not only is it
exactly what we hate out of Micro
>
> > 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.
>
> bash(1):
>If bash is invoked with the name sh, it tries to mimic the
>startup behavior of historical versions of sh
Yes it tries to mimic the startup behavior, but that doesn't mean it
limits its own functionality strictly to the POSIX bourne shell subset.
I think Alan's comment that there should be a /bin/sh that behaves
strictly to POSIX compliance has some merits, particularly to force
coders to write portab
Thilo Mezger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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.
bash(1):
If bash is invoked with the name sh, it tries to mimic the
startup behavior of
Hi!
There's a thread on the guinness list about sh/bash/bash2 and I
just wanted to tell you my $0.02 of this /bin/sh vs. bash1/bash2 story.
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.
The rea
18 matches
Mail list logo
