Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 12:35:27 -0600 (MDT) From: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> To: "William A. Mahaffey III" <wam@hiwaay.net> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sh man page .... Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.11.1410111225240.17576@wonkity.com> In-Reply-To: <54394775.9020303@hiwaay.net> References: <5437FB8B.9080008@hiwaay.net> <20141011142538.45c9f45a@elena.home> <54394775.9020303@hiwaay.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 11 Oct 2014, William A. Mahaffey III wrote: > I am only whining about the 'oversight' (my word) > since I came in the other direction (bash 1st, under Linux, followed by sh > under FBSD). I am making the suggestion from a purely logistical POV, since > bash is pretty widespread, & people coming to FBSD from Linux may bring their > bash scripts & such w/ them. This is entirely reasonable. We have programs that accept different options for Linux compatibility like find(1). I'm pretty certain that we have man pages that document differences between native FreeBSD programs and others. The documentation is there to help the user. Documenting differences and incompatibilities certainly falls into that category, particularly for the confusion surrounding a real sh(1) versus bash pretending to be sh.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.11.1410111225240.17576>