Subject: Re: discrepency beteen /bin/echo and builtin echo of /bin/sh
To: Greg A. Woods <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Greywolf <email@example.com>
Date: 06/09/2002 22:11:21
On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Greg A. Woods wrote:
# Ah, WRONG! These days /bin/sh should be expected to be at least
# POSIX.2 compliant, if not full SuSv2 compliant. Truly traditional
# Bourne shell is truly unrealistic and very restrictive.
Yep, lack of functions among other things.
# > (this include netbsd's build.sh)
# > Systems that install shells into /bin/sh which are nothing
# > like a bourne shell ought to be deleted (bash is a particularly
# > good example of a bad sh).
# Yes, "bash" specific requirements should be bashed out of existance.
Despite the fact that I use bash as a CLI, I happen to agree with this
statement wholeheartedly. Program to the lowest common denominator.
Any system that cannot handle a shell script written to that denominator
can thus be declared not to be "sane".
# Perhaps you should do a real-world comparison between POSIX.2 and
# SuSv2. They're really not all that far apart. Ksh was leading in
# innovations, and for very good reasons.
Nothing to say that hasn't been said.
# > I do (usually) try to write scripts that that a 'proper'
# > bourne sh (eg the solaris one) will run.
# Well in that case (i.e. the solaris one), you're already lost.
Oh? Enlighten us, please. As a solaris admin for a living, I think
I need to hear this.
# If you were to use /usr/xpg4/bin/sh you'd be much better off.
NetBSD is much like a tipi: No windows, no gates, and an apache inside.