On Monday 17 May 2010 21:03, Peter Tyser wrote: > > > I also echo your opinions about keeping the scripts portable. > > > > I can sympathise with this point of view. > > > > However, I can see another point of view: > > > > Why, after years and years of happily using bash, everybody should be > > tortured now by being forced to work in a shell which: > > > > * does not have a single source release linked to its homepage > > (http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/dash/) > > * does not support many (any?) bash extensions, even simple ones > > * does not have a testsuite > > > > Why? > > > > Who are those people and why I am forced to use their shell now? > > > > Why am I a hostage now to their whim on when, and *whether*, > > they will agree to fix bug foo or implement feature baz? > > bash didn't have bug foo and had feature baz, and I was happy. > > Now I'm not. > > I definitely see your points. But I don't think this discussion should > be centered on dash. To me its a debate about using portable POSIX > compliant shell scripting vs using bash-specific shell scripting. If we > use POSIX compliant code, dash, as well as most other shells should work > without issue. If we use bash-specific shell scripting bash will work, > and others *may* work. > > The 2 acceptable solutions to me would be (in order of preference): > 1. Use POSIX compliant shell scripting, and using /bin/sh as the > interpreter. > > 2. Use bash shell scripting, and use /bin/bash as the interpreter. > > Right now, we're using bash scripting, but using /bin/sh as the > interpreter. This is what I think is broke. If we use /bin/sh as the > interpreter, we shouldn't be using bashisms. If we use /bin/bash as the > interpreter, than we're free to use bashisms as we please. > > So in any case, in my mind it comes down to using option #1 or #2 above > - and I do see both sides of that argument. Either #1 or #2 would be an > improvement in my opinion.
Ok, let's go for choice #1 -- vda _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
