Didier Kryn <k...@in2p3.fr> writes: [...]
>> It should be the name of a shell capable of running Bourne/ standard >> shell scripts. But this may not work if the /bin/dash in the original >> script was there for a reason, ie, it was using dash features. >> > As I already wrote, vdev was working well with busybox's ash., > replacing 'dash' with 'sh' in the shebang. > > If the question is why Jude replaced /bin/sh with /bin/dash in the > middle of the development, I think it was to make sure to not invoke > bash. But (sorry for the repetition) I used to modify the shebang > everytime I tested a new version, and there was never any issue with > the shell. There is no question here. *If* the script in question uses dash spuriously, ie, it doesn't use features specific to dash but is actually a Bourne shell script, replacing /bin/dash with /bin/sh should be fine. If not, stuff is going to break sooner or later, either because /bin/sh isn't really dash (eg, someone might use bash for that) or because of difference between the busybox and Debian (d)ash forks. This depends on the code of the script/ scripts in question and blindly advocating to replace the shell chosen by whoever wrote the script with a generic name is not a good idea. _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
