On 2008-07-16T20:42:28, Matthew Soffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The main reason for not wanting bash was for the Non Linux architectures
> (i.e. *BSD and Solaris).
>
> Yes, its a readily available but since it isn't standard and sh is, whats
> the big deal ?
>
> Desiging/coding for sh (not for bash) means maximum portability.
We've had incidents where people sh-ified scripts such as drbd, which is
plain pointless, as that is only available on Linux.
Compared to the other stuff we pull in, I really, really, really don't
get it.
Regards,
Lars
--
Teamlead Kernel, SuSE Labs, Research and Development
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde
_______________________________________________________
Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
