Didier Kryn <[email protected]> writes: > Le 11/02/2016 17:04, Rainer Weikusat a écrit : >> Didier Kryn <[email protected]> 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. >> > > There shouldn't be any "feature specific to dash", by > construction.
There are, "by construction". Eg, dash supports local, the POSIX /bin/sh doesn't. _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list [email protected] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
