On 2016-04-03 01:24, Achim Gratz wrote:
Yaakov Selkowitz writes:
I am not in favour of /bin/sh being alternatives-able.
I'd posit that it should not be bash then and somwone else might
reasonably want a different /bin/sh, perhaps even bash. Which is
exactly why the alternatives system exists.
Unfortunately the reality is that not all #!/bin/sh scripts are 100%
POSIX compliant, nor am I convinced that all the possible shells are
interchangeable either. Ultimately this would lead to unpredictable
(and difficult to support) behaviour for scripts.
The *proper* course of action is to use the shebang for the script
interpreter you require, i.e. /bin/dash.
It's perfectly OK to use /bin/sh (I'd even recommend it) if all you want
is a POSIX shell.
True, but the OP said "my scripts rely on ASH/DASH functionality that is
not present in BASH". If you use functionality specific to a given
shell, then you have to shebang that shell!
--
Yaakov
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
