<snip> > > Maybe some other shells happen to allow read without arguments, but its > > a crapshoot as its not a standard. > > Which is why you say #!/bin/bash and then teach busybox's shells to > understand > the name "bash". The name is a promise of an API beyond Posix.
That's fine by me, adding optional support for bashisms to busybox's shells seems like a good idea. However, how does that relate to the #!/bin/bash vs #!/bin/sh debate in build scripts we're having (or hopefully had?)? I'd guess the vast majority of developers don't use busybox's shell when building busybox itself. Thus we are still left with the original debate of scripts using "bash+bashisms" or "sh +nobashisms". Or am I missing something? I thought we had reached the consensus that we should strive to remove bashisms from the build scripts. Is this still the case? Best, Peter _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
