Yes it tries to mimic the startup behavior, but that doesn't mean it
limits its own functionality strictly to the POSIX bourne shell subset.
I think Alan's comment that there should be a /bin/sh that behaves
strictly to POSIX compliance has some merits, particularly to force
coders to write portable code.
I'm not sure it it's *that* important, but it seems worth considering.
- Matt
Alan Shutko wrote:
>
> Thilo Mezger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > IMHO, it would be a very good idea to have a 100% posix-compliant
> > /bin/sh without any extensions. /bin/sh should *not* be symlinked
> > to /bin/bash.
>
> bash(1):
> If bash is invoked with the name sh, it tries to mimic the
> startup behavior of historical versions of sh as closely
> as possible, while conforming to the POSIX standard as
> well.
>
> If it's not doing that, it should be reported as a bug.
>
> --
> Alan Shutko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - In a variety of flavors!
> 4 days, 57 minutes, 24 seconds till we run away.
> Sinner: A stupid person who gets found out.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Redhat-devel-list mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-devel-list
_______________________________________________
Redhat-devel-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-devel-list
