Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 20:35:44 -0600 From: "Mike Meyer" <mwm-dated-1015036545.8978d2@mired.org> To: swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen) Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Linux shell scripts Message-ID: <15481.41728.865317.239202@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <133903080@toto.iv>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Gary W. Swearingen <swear@blarg.net> types: > It's reasonable, if not ideal, to require that "bash" or even "bash2" be > installed Having exterminated bash on all my systems, I'd not call that reasonable, much less ideal. On the other hand, I never learned the *scripting* features that bash has that might cause one to want to use it instead of sh. On the gripping hand, anytime a script requires more than one loop or conditional test, it's time to consider a real scripting language, like Perl or - ideally :-) - Python. > but it's not reasonable to require that commands like "sh" > and "head" support the script identically to the script writer's "sh" > often linked to "bash", flagging a "portable" mode of "bash") and "head". Such things should conform to Posix if the script is meant to be portable. Unfortunately, man and info pages seldom document which flags are part of posix and which are extensisions, nor do they document which flags that do what the posix flags do result in output that doesn't comply with posix. Which is SOP for Unix systems. <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15481.41728.865317.239202>