Gabriele Bulfon <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > recently I've been driving mad porting a linux software containing a lot of > shells, failing with poor debugging infos. > At the end, I found they were all using /bin/sh but required a compatible > Bourne shell. > This will require me to patch hundreds of shell to point to /bin/bash instead > of /bin/sh > So my question is : do we really need /bin/sh to point to ksh in 2016? What > do I risk by changing its link to /bin/bash?
bash is not Bourne Shell compatible and probably never has been. bash implements many kshisms and what people call bashisms are usually kshisms. Linux distros usually do not install bash as /bin/sh these days and it is most unlikely that shell scripts from Linux require bash unless explicitely marked as bash scripts. What Linux usually installs as /bin/sh is dash and Linux scripts have been modified to match this change. dash is closer to the POSIX standard than bash. The Schily Bourne Shell now is POSIX compliant and adds some special features expected on Linux. If you like to be able to use Linux scripts out of the box, it is a good idea to install the Schily Bourne Shell as /bin/sh. If we assume that Illumos did not add nonportable constructs to system scripts, you need to fix 3 scripts that have been made non-portable by Sun before August 2010. See recent Schily-Tools for the recent Schily Bourne Shell sources. Jörg -- EMail:[email protected] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [email protected] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/' ------------------------------------------- illumos-discuss Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/182180/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/182180/21175430-2e6923be Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21175430&id_secret=21175430-6a77cda4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
