>>>>>       2) At the time of this test campaign, the shebang line of 
>>>>> vdev
>>>>> scripts was #!/bin/dash, which doesn't work in Busybox. It should 
>>>>> be
>>>>> replaced by #!/bin/sh which works in all cases.
>>>> This isn't necessarily true. Both dash and the usual busybox sh are
>>>> forks of the Amquist shell (ash) which is supposed to be enable to
>>>> execute scripts written in the Bourne shell language/ for the
>>>> standardized /bin/sh but they also provide extensions of their own 
>>>> (eg,
>>>> like bash, dash supports lexically scoped function variables but the
>>>> Bourne/ standard shell doesn't). The busybox ash can also compiled 
>>>> w/o
>>>> certain features, eg, arithmetic expansion.

>>>      There's no theory behind that. It's just practical and the 
>>> result
>>> of experimenting.

>>>      The way Busybox works is all applications are links to
>>> /bin/busybox. When invoqued, /bin/busybox
>> ... looks at argv[0] and invokes the corresponding embedded
>> program. "Everybody knows that" (well, not everybody but everybody who
>> ever worked with busybox) .

>>>      On the other hand, the default shell in Debian, the one invoked 
>>> by
>>> /bin/sh, is dash. I guess in every distro /bin/sh points to the
>>> ~POSIX-compliant shell. Therefore '#!/bin/sh' should just work
>>> everywhere.
>> 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.

>     Another possibility would be to write a wrapper script called
> /bin/dash, like
> #! /bin/sh
> exec /bin/sh $@

>                                 Didier