On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 15:25:41 -0800, Gregory K. Ruiz-Ade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mar 3, 2005, at 3:21 PM, Todd Walton wrote: > > > I thought bash was supposed to be 100% compatible with sh, in that a > > pure sh script would run identically in both sh and bash? If that's > > the case, I don't see a problem with linking /bin/sh to /bin/bash. > > The problem is that the compatibility doesn't go the other way. If you > write a script taking advantage of bash-specific features, it won't run > in Bourne Shell (POSIX sh). Systems which merely symlink /bin/sh to > /bin/bash result in shell scripts which use bash-specific things that > don't work in /bin/sh on systems with a _real_ /bin/sh.
So, that's a problem with the script writer saying "#!/bin/sh" when his/her script won't actually run under sh. But I see now what Stewart was arguing against. If "sh" is always bash for most people, that causes incorrectly written shell scripts, whoever's fault it is. -todd -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
