Author: Rick Moen Date: To: dng Subject: Re: [DNG] Danger: Debian POSIX hostility
Quoting Peter Duffy (peter@???):
> With respect, I'd tend to disagree with that to some extent. The /bin/sh
> symlink is built in, and is there from the point that the system is
That was a _second_ if lesser blunder (in that bash was, even at the
inception of Linux, a poor approximation of the Bourne shell), but
doesn't excuse the one of failing to put /bin/bash in the shebang if one
intends to write a bash-specific script. Which is what was actually
> So it's a feature made available to users, and it's arguably
> not a blunder to use it.
It's not a blunder to use a /bin/sh -> /bin/bash symlink. It's a
blunder to fail to specify bash in the shebang if you're writing a bash
> I'd agree that best practice is specifying bash explicitly in the
> shebang, if it's required (something that I personally have always done
> since I first bitten by the bash/dash problem).
For values of 'best practices' approximating 'This will prevent your
script accidentally breaking if you use bash-specific features and
your script ends up being run at a time or place where /bin/sh is
something other than bash.'
> I'm trying to remember what happens on systems that default to ksh and
> csh - I assume that on those, the shebang always needs to specify the
> shell to be used.
ksh and pdksh are fairly close approximations of the Bourne shell. csh
and tcsh are very much not.
This message was posted to the following mailing lists: