From owner-freebsd-current Tue Oct 27 04:31:56 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA13587 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 04:31:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from zone.syracuse.net (zone.syracuse.net [205.232.47.17]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA13582 for ; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 04:31:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from green@zone.syracuse.net) Received: from localhost (green@localhost) by zone.syracuse.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA05463; Tue, 27 Oct 1998 07:31:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 07:31:15 -0500 (EST) From: Brian Feldman To: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" cc: Chuck Robey , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Changing sh for compatibility sake In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19981026205249.009cd860@localhost> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Let me repeat this once more: not a SINGLE script breaks with pdksh! Brian Feldman On Mon, 26 Oct 1998, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote: > Chuck wrote: > >I'm sorry, that's not true. Ask anyone who writes shell scripts that > >install software (or perform any necessarily portable function) across > >multiple platforms. sh is the shell to use ONLY BECAUSE it's the lowest > >common denominator. Why else would they use the dumbest shell? > > I've written numerous system/install sh scripts. But it's not to > one specific implementation, its many. It seems like every OS > has it's own variant of sh. I do not know of any version of sh > that can reliable used as a golden target sh. Each and very > implementation of sh has its quirks that have to be dealt with. > FreeBSD sh definitely has its, as do the others. > > Any change will likely cause problems in some existing scripts. > Also, any change will cause developers to deal with additional > portability issues. This is life. Most multiple platform sh > developers have already adapted to specific quicks of popular > sh implementations. Changing from one to another should not > be that big of a deal. I suspect a few FreeBSD-only sh scripts > will choke. > > Don't change sh for compatibility sake, our scripts are already > compatible! Do change for functionality sake, we'll adapt as > necessary. > > Kurt > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message