From: <lic...@ge...> - 2006-08-01 17:08:39
|
Adam Thornton wrote: > On Aug 1, 2006, at 4:37 AM, Dan Langille wrote: > >>I feel compelled to point that that on FreeBSD /bin/sh is actually >>the c shell, not bash. Bash is available, but optional. Shell >>scripts should be coded to the c-standard to minimize portability >>issues. > > > Wow. Do you *really* mean /bin/sh is the same as /bin/csh ? > > That seems....badly broken, if it's the case. It's an Almquist shell (ash) derivate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almquist_shell > I wouldn't be objecting if /bin/sh were real honest-to-goodness > Bourne Shell, rather than the Bourne Again Shell (bash)...but Bourne > and C shells have very different semantics, csh is not very pleasant > for scripting in (though it can be nice for interactive use) (example > 1: how do you send stderr one place and stdout another, using csh?), > and calling one the other is only going to lead to heartbreak. If > this really was the FreeBSD design, it's a silly one. > > I hope that was a typo/thinko, and really /bin/sh is just plain-old- > dumb-Bourne-shell, in which case we ought to be targeting POSIX sh > (not csh)--which is a good idea anyway, as then it will run under any > system whose /bin/sh claims POSIX compliance (which, I think, all, or > at least most, do). It's still annoying if you're used to a lot of > the bash constructs, though. > > Adam > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > _______________________________________________ > Bacula-devel mailing list > Bac...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel > > |