On Sun, 16 May 2010, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > On Saturday 15 May 2010 21:28, Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote: > > On Sat, 15 May 2010, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > > > > > On Saturday 15 May 2010 19:57, Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote: > > > > On Sat, 15 May 2010, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > > > > > > > > > They are not bash compat :) > > > > > > > > Pick any one shell as _the_ reference shell and compare it with > > > > all other major shells. The in"compat"ibilities (bash or not > > > > bash) will be noticable. > > > > > > But bash is de-facto standard Linux shell. > > > > Was. Things change. Several distributions made the choice to replace > > bash with dash. I was not involved in that process. I'll have to > > live with it. Mind you, I don't necessarily think it's a bad > > decision. > > It's a good decision *if* dash developers will not jump on the > opportunity to become assholes, having such a large group of people > their hostages now.
True. > Seeing an email in dash archives where one developer says "standards > only require that redirections support fds 0..9", I am not very > optimistic. I do share your worries, indeed. If that attitude continues, I would not rule out the risk we may see a fork of dash, sometime in a not too distant future. That said, being somewhat restrictive with feature bloat is not bad. Cheers, -- Cristian _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
