On 10/20/06, Grobian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 20-10-2006 13:53:39 -0600, m h wrote:
> I don't get any error, and when I just make it executable and call it
> directly I don't get an error either. I'm not sure why calling it
> with sh makes a difference...
because sh not is bash. bash might even behave a little bit different
if it is called as sh. Alternative is to change the shebang to
bin/bash instead of bin/sh
I'm aware that bash is not sh. My understanding was the bash was a
superset of sh so executing sh commands with bash would be find. I
find it weird that bash behaves differently if you call it by a
symlink named "sh"....
-matt
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
