Quoting Peter Duffy ([email protected]): > 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.
That was a _second_ if lesser blunder (in that bash was, even at the inception of Linux, a poor approximation of the Bourne shell), but doesn't excuse the one of failing to put /bin/bash in the shebang if one intends to write a bash-specific script. Which is what was actually under discussion. > So it's a feature made available to users, and it's arguably > not a blunder to use it. It's not a blunder to use a /bin/sh -> /bin/bash symlink. It's a blunder to fail to specify bash in the shebang if you're writing a bash script. > I'd agree that best practice is specifying bash explicitly in the > shebang, if it's required (something that I personally have always done > since I first bitten by the bash/dash problem). For values of 'best practices' approximating 'This will prevent your script accidentally breaking if you use bash-specific features and your script ends up being run at a time or place where /bin/sh is something other than bash.' > I'm trying to remember what happens on systems that default to ksh and > csh - I assume that on those, the shebang always needs to specify the > shell to be used. ksh and pdksh are fairly close approximations of the Bourne shell. csh and tcsh are very much not. _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list [email protected] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
