Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 21:40:41 -0800 From: Studded <Studded@gorean.org> To: Chuck Robey <chuckr@mat.net> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: sh and ~ expansion Message-ID: <36340B59.DC0FEEBF@gorean.org> References: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9810251853310.375-100000@picnic.mat.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Chuck Robey wrote: [some snipping] > On Sun, 25 Oct 1998, Studded wrote: > > > And so it begins... > > No, you're the one trying to turn this into "holy war". I've specifically stated several times that I'd like to avoid that. My comment was meant to be ironic, given that whether anyone wants it to be a battle or not it's still an ugly can of worms. > You bragged about bash, and promptly said anyone who replies to your comments at all > is flaming. I said nothing of the kind. I stated what I hoped were objective criteria that make bash a better choice as a replacement for our sh and asked you to state objective criteria for using pdksh. > We're not picking a standard shell here, Actually if we use Bash in posix mode as sh having it available as a standard shell will be a fine bonus. :) > we're picking (probably have picked, negatively) I don't know what this means. > a possible ash replacement. > > ash? That's the sh we're using now. Kind of. We have a lot of FreeBSD specific extensions in our sh. > The pdksh man page says it's compatible with sh. Tor Egge brought up > some bugs, which were enought to make me rethink. The nice thing about > pdksh is, statically linked, it's smaller than our sh, and it's got > extra features that are neat. If it's got bugs or is incompatible, it's > outta here. > > I am solely interested in NOT breaking sh compatibility here with > FreeBSD. As far as sh goes, that's my only interest, and bash breaks > that real well. Posix does too, I understand. You still haven't defined which version of sh you want to have compatibility with, or why specifically Bash isn't compatible with it. We can't continue this conversation if you're not willing to give some sort of objective criteria to base it on. > I am not going to argue > any shell's features *beyond* sh compatiblity. I've never heard of > various flavors or sh, it's all the Bourne shell. If you've got any > comment about THAT, I'd love to hear it, I've never heard of multiple > versions of sh. Teach me. As I said previously, spend a month reading comp.unix.shell and then talk to us again. :) You could learn a lot from the FAQ's in that group, and of course there is the PR database and the mailing list archives. Try to believe me when I say that this isn't intended as an insult, but if you're not familiar with the various incarnations of the Bourne shell then your arguing about whether one shell or another is compatible or not isn't very valuable. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?36340B59.DC0FEEBF>