On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 03:59:40PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
[snip]
> If you can use ${x%%y}, ${x#y} etc. to achieve the same effect (you
> often can), you get the best of both worlds. I believe they're
> specified by POSIX; certainly, current dash supports them, and they're
> in the SUS.
SuSv
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 at 13:01:45 +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
> * The package then has fewer dependencies
> * ... and can then be installed on a system without bash.
This doesn't help Debian directly, but it may help upstreams to be portable
to operating systems with a reason to use a non-bash shell -
Thomas Hood writes ("Eliminating bash scripts?"):
> Recently I noticed some bug reports asking that scripts be
> rewritten to run on (POSIX) sh. These weren't the familiar
> (and completely justified) complaints about bashisms in scripts
> shebanged #!/bin/sh. The
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 13:01:45 +0200
Thomas Hood wrote:
> * The package then has fewer dependencies
> * ... and can then be installed on a system without bash.
Unless the package is doing a lot of clever stuff in shell (at which
point it is possibly worth asking if the package should use a faster
Recently I noticed some bug reports asking that scripts be
rewritten to run on (POSIX) sh. These weren't the familiar
(and completely justified) complaints about bashisms in scripts
shebanged #!/bin/sh. These were requests to rewrite #!/bin/bash
scripts as #!/bin/sh scripts. Why do this? The fol
5 matches
Mail list logo
