Thank you Steve and everybody else for your feedback and research! This was exactly the pointer I was looking for, so I have some good arguments on asking the projects to explicitly invoke 'sh' instead of relying on some [poorly chosen ;-)] default shell.
Am 02.01.2014 20:35, schrieb Stestagg - stest...@gmail.com: > In a POSIX compliant system, you should be able to rely on 'sh' being > available in the system PATH (you can't rely on where 'sh' is without > interrogating the system which is hard to do remotely): > > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904975/utilities/sh.html > > Where possible, utilities shouldn't expect a user's interactive shell to > be POSIX compliant, or make any assumptions about a user's shell, so > explicitly invoking 'sh' is much better practice. > > Having said that, I can see why some projects may not be particularly > concerned about this. > > Steve ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your Java,.NET, & PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics Pro! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Fish-users mailing list Fish-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fish-users
