Rainer Weikusat <rainerweikusat@???> writes:

[/bin/dash -> /bin/sh]

>>> 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.
>>

>>     There shouldn't be any "feature specific to dash", by
>> construction.

>
> There are, "by construction". Eg, dash supports local, the POSIX /bin/sh
> doesn't.

A more serious one (which has once bitten me badly): dash supports chdir
as undocumented alias for cd (at least up to Wheezy)

[rw@doppelsaurus]/tmp#dash -c 'chdir / && pwd'
/
[rw@doppelsaurus]/tmp#bash -c 'chdir / && pwd'
bash: chdir: command not found

And then, the busybox (d)ash and the Deban dash are still completely
independent codebases