On Jul 18, 2008, at 12:43 AM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
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.
agreed
_______________________________________________________
Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
