which still understands ''echo -n'.
But they didn't created new shell. This shell (/bin/sh)
is hacked bash copy only which will be recognized as bash
by scripts which later will bahve wrongly. IMHO It's the
worst thing they could do.
The two shell binaries
are almost identical, except some subtle differences, like
this one.
Unfortunately they are _too_similar_ and both reports that
are bash when one of them is hacked bash confusing scripts.
Yes. We probably have to live with this though, as they
did it on purpose. Maybe they'll do something in 10.6,
but in 10.5 it'll surely stay like this.
I think their concept might be to discourage any non-sh
compatible extensions to be used anywhere. I might be wrong
and I cannot judge how bad this is, but as far as it
enhances .sh consistency, it might even be good in theory.
I'm referring to this article as a starting point:
http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20071106192548833
[ read the comments too. ]
I've just read it and I do not agree it's well implemented feature.
Due to MacOSX authors we will have new rules in autoconf to detect
bash and MacOSX hacked bash :-(
They've hurried Leopard a bit for sure. (it took me 2 complete
days to consistently wade through all the possible install bugs
I've ever read about.)
Anyway, if we don't use 'echo -n' we're fine, aren't we?
Brgds,
Viktor
_______________________________________________
Harbour mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
