From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Apr 20 1:24:47 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C839237B830 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 01:24:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA07275 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:24:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id KAA00852 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:24:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gilgamesch.bik-gmbh.de (T1-Hansenet.BIK-GmbH.de [192.76.134.246]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3383037BDD2 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 01:24:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cracauer@gilgamesch.bik-gmbh.de) Received: (from cracauer@localhost) by gilgamesch.bik-gmbh.de (8.9.3/8.7.3) id KAA15897; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:24:12 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:24:12 +0200 From: Martin Cracauer To: Doug Barton Cc: Warner Losh , Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Shells Message-ID: <20000420102412.E14732@cons.org> References: <200004152356.e3FNup102274@cwsys.cwsent.com> <200004160306.VAA30436@harmony.village.org> <38F9D390.56CAF339@gorean.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <38F9D390.56CAF339@gorean.org>; from Doug@gorean.org on Sun, Apr 16, 2000 at 07:52:00AM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In <38F9D390.56CAF339@gorean.org>, Doug Barton wrote: > Warner Losh wrote: > > > > In message <200004152356.e3FNup102274@cwsys.cwsent.com> Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group writes: > > : With commit of tcsh, I'd like to raise another question. Are there any > > : plans to replace sh with bash. Granted they're not 100% compatible, > > > > What does this mean. If it means that sh scripts won't run on BASH, > > then I'd say the odds are very low. tcsh runs all csh scripts as far > > as I know. No examples were held up in the last batch of shell > > jihads. > > IIRC, the last time replacing /bin/sh came up several people > experimented with zsh in POSIX mode and found a few small, gratuitous > differences in our sh that cropped up during a make world. Results with > Bash should be similar. That assumption is pure prejustice and obviously not backed by any testing. [...] > The primary criterion that I suggest for selection of a suitable > replacement are a strict adherence to POSIX standards (or at least a > bash-like POSIX mode), and a totally unencumbered (and/or BSD) license. > That pretty much leaves us with pdksh and zsh. I realize that the other > BSD's have chosen pdksh, No, OpenBSD has, but NetBSD still uses ash for /bin/sh (with a different set of bugfixes than ours). Could somebody tell me whether pdksh or zsh even try to offer an extension-free pure POSIX mode? Martin -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Martin Cracauer http://www.cons.org/cracauer/ BSD User Group Hamburg, Germany http://www.bsdhh.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message