> > I think the right thing is to specify something like this: > > > > /bin/sh MUST be present; SHALL be POSIX.2 conforming > > Shells specifically approved include: bash, ksh, ash? > > I wonder if any shell other than bash will completely work in most > distributions as /bin/sh.
This got discussed in Atlanta. There is a strong feeling /bin/sh shouldnt be posix guaranteed (since only bash 2 and the commercial ksh are). Also a lot of people like something small and fast running their default scripts. Suggestions included having a /bin/lsbsh for a shell that meets the lsb specific definitions > > /bin/csh IF present, MUST be compatible (bugs excepted) with > > the BSD C-shell. tcsh is specifically allowed. Which BSD C-shell. The bugs vary by variant in very bad ways. Also tcsh as csh shouldnt be acceptable. The quoting rules are different and it causes security holes in things like metamail > > /bin/ksh IF present, MUST match the Korn Shell specification > > pdksh and ksh93 are specifically allowed. > > Is pdksh completely compatible with the original ksh? no > > /bin/bash IF present, MUST be the Bourne Again Shell from the > > Free Software Foundation or a fully compatible > > program. v1 or v2 ? > > /bin/tcsh IF present, MUST be tcsh 6 or later from Cornell > > University or a fully compatible program. Ok Alan
