On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 01:28:17AM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > On Saturday 07 May 2011 13:40, Sven Mascheck wrote:
> > Are bash features only added to minimize surprises, that is, to grok > > existing scripts, and not so much to be used "as documented"? > > I don't understand. > > Bash compat features added to make Linux users' lives easier - > so that they can use same scripts on "big" Linux installations > and on "small", busybox-based ones Linux machines. I guess that's exactly what I meant with "to minimize surprises". > bash is the de-facto Linux standard shell. I think practicality > trumps "but it's not a standard feature!!!" zealotry a-la dash. > Therefore, emulating some bashisms is a good thing. I'm curious: have you (e.g. by user feedback) already experienced effects due to ubuntu and debian having moved to dash as /bin/sh? > for those who don't want to have bash-specific code compiled in, > CONFIG_ASH_BASH_COMPAT can be unset. That's a good motivation to return to the source, thanks. (Do you suggest a certain way to learn the other fixes/features or is just following the git log the way to go?) > > (how to debug subtle problems then?) > > I don't understand. for the record: I had wondered about the (unusual?) case where a user experiences unexpected behaviour (for him) in a script and has to find out whether he made an error, misunderstood the language or found a bug. The reference manual if available would be the usual start then. -Sven _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
