On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 10:53:15 +0100 Peter Duffy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-09-21 at 18:07 -0700, Rick Moen wrote: > > Quoting marc ([email protected]): > > > > > Hmm - that might require some background: I'd venture that most of > > > these scripts were written when sh was just a symlink to bash, and > > > dash didn't exist, nevermind as a debian package. > > > > But that was always a blunder. The shebang should have been set to > > bash explicitly, if bash-specific features are used: In the cases > > of which you spoke, the coder made a lazy and unsupportable > > assumption. > > With respect, I'd tend to disagree with that to some extent. The > /bin/sh symlink is built in, and is there from the point that the > system is installed. So it's a feature made available to users, and > it's arguably not a blunder to use it. Whether it's a good feature or > not is definitely a moot point. The convention in linux (think since > it originated) was that /bin/sh pointed to bash - until Debian > decided to do it differently. I would never use Bash in a shellscript. Therefore, do you think my shebang should just go straight to #!/bin/dash instead of #!/bin/sh ? That would certainly take the ambiguity out of it. Or maybe I should shebang all my shellscripts #!/bin/littshell . That way, if I ever found a better alternative than dash, or if I operated on a system without dash, I could just change a symlink. The downside would be that none of my shellscripts could work on computers without the /bin/littshell symlink. Or should I just make sure /bin/sh always points to dash? Thanks, SteveT Steve Litt Autumn 2020 featured book: Thriving in Tough Times http://www.troubleshooters.com/thrive _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list [email protected] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
