On Fri November 24 2006 14:42, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 14:03 -0700, Bruce Sass wrote: > > On Fri November 24 2006 13:15, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > > Instead of focusing and hammering again and again on /bin/sh, why > > > not instead ask maintainers to do #!/bin/dash? > > > > because bash offers a larger superset of sh features than dash, and > > "sh" is a standard part of System V-like unix systems like Linux > > But #!/bin/sh scripts aren't allowed to use those. What I'm saying > is that the energy spent on making rules about #!/bin/sh would be > better spent encouraging people to simply switch--when > appropriate--to #!/bin/dash.
If someone uses dash features not included in, both, the spec for "sh" and other Bourne shells allowed to become "sh", they should use #!/bin/dash. IMO. bash is in the same boat. > > > There may well be advantages to dash for this or that > > > application. So then, maintainers should be encouraged to use it. > > > The best way, of course, is #!/bin/dash. > > > > and stop using "sh" altogether, or should the www.emdebian.org > > people fork the entire distribution? > > What I said was that *if* it is better for a given script to run with > dash than with bash, the maintainer should be encouraged to say > #!/bin/dash. Sure, but since all "sh" scripts would be better off if they specified dash as their command interpreter... #!/bin/sh use would disappear. > I don't think it's my job to start saying what *other* distributions, > which are not Debian, should do. but it is Debian's job to be responsive to its users needs and Debian has made a choice to strive for susv3 compatibility - Bruce -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
