On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 11:48 -0400, Paul Fox wrote: > for quite some time, ash was virtually identical to debian's > "dash", except for source layout, and busybox config mods. > > as i understood it (though i may be wrong on this point), "dash" > is what is now used as ubuntu's /bin/sh. if this is the case, > then the ubuntu docs, and improvements, should all be applicable > (to some extent) to ash. > > am i way off base on this?
It is unquestionably true that Ubuntu was and is using dash as /bin/sh, rather than bash. They do ship bash as /bin/bash, for users etc. I know this because I'm constantly filing bugs with 3rd party toolkits that naively expect /bin/sh to be bash. They should either use #!/bin/bash specifically (boo!) or else write their scripts to the POSIX standard (yay!) and use #!/bin/sh. The man page for sh on Ubuntu is a BSD-based man page. I haven't really reviewed it for accuracy and POSIX compliance, but it's very likely closer than the bash man page. As for the rest, I don't know. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul D. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://netezza.com "Please remain calm--I may be mad, but I am a professional."--Mad Scientist ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- These are my opinions--Netezza takes no responsibility for them. _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
