Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 20:52:49 -0800 From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.Org> To: Chuck Robey <chuckr@mat.net> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Changing sh for compatibility sake Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19981026205249.009cd860@localhost> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9810262002240.2963-100000@picnic.mat.net> References: <3.0.5.32.19981026163758.009dd550@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3.0.5.32.19981026205249.009cd860>