Didier Kryn <kryn@???> writes:

[...]

>> It should be the name of a shell capable of running Bourne/ standard
>> shell scripts. But this may not work if the /bin/dash in the original
>> script was there for a reason, ie, it was using dash features.
>>

>     As I already wrote, vdev was working well with busybox's ash.,
> replacing 'dash' with 'sh' in the shebang.

>

>     If the question is why Jude replaced /bin/sh with /bin/dash in the
> middle of the development, I think it was to make sure to not invoke
> bash. But (sorry for the repetition) I used to modify the shebang
> everytime I tested a new version, and there was never any issue with
> the shell.

There is no question here. *If* the script in question uses dash
spuriously, ie, it doesn't use features specific to dash but is actually
a Bourne shell script, replacing /bin/dash with /bin/sh should be
fine. If not, stuff is going to break sooner or later, either because
/bin/sh isn't really dash (eg, someone might use bash for that) or
because of difference between the busybox and Debian (d)ash forks.

This depends on the code of the script/ scripts in question and blindly
advocating to replace the shell chosen by whoever wrote the script with
a generic name is not a good idea.