Andy Mortimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > There has just been a long list of bugs against packages using `bashisms'
> > in their scripts, and I can certainly remember this issue coming up
> > before. But I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly have no idea
> > what features are availabl
I would imagine that the sensible approach would be to script only with
features found in both ash and bash. This would also make you ksh
safe if someone were to propigate the susV stupidity of installing ksh
as sh.
Costa
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Baker)
Subject: Re: list of bashisms
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Andy Mortimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There has just been a long list of bugs against packages using `bashisms'
> in their scripts, and I can certainly remember this issue coming up
> before. But I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly have no
Andy Mortimer wrote:
> There has just been a long list of bugs against packages using `bashisms'
> in their scripts, and I can certainly remember this issue coming up
> before. But I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly have no idea
> what features are available in the `original sh'.
I us
There has just been a long list of bugs against packages using `bashisms'
in their scripts, and I can certainly remember this issue coming up
before. But I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly have no idea
what features are available in the `original sh'.
Is there a list somewhere, which
5 matches
Mail list logo