ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
Subject Re: sh versus bash
Date Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:35:08 GMT

The Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS) has this to say:

If /bin/sh is Bash, then /bin/sh should be a symbolic or hard link to 
/bin/bash since Bash behaves differently when called as sh or bash.
 pdksh, which may be the /bin/sh on install disks, should likewise be 
arranged with /bin/sh being a symlink to /bin/ksh. The use of a 
symbolic link in these cases allows users to easily see that /bin/sh 
is not a true Bourne shell. 

The de-facto standard location of the C-shell is /bin/csh. A C-shell 
or equivalent (such as tcsh), if available on the system, should be
 located at /bin/csh. /bin/csh may be a symbolic link to /bin/tcsh or 




> Peter Donald <> wrote:
> > Some systems apparently link /bin/sh to tcsh
> Must have missed that post, but I think this is just wrong.
> Too many scripts out there assume that /bin/sh is Bourne shell
> compatible. Any vendor shipping with a /bin/sh that was not a Bourne
> shell would surely get toasted.
> On all Unix systems I've ever worked with (including C-Shell based
> systems like HP/UX and Solaris) /bin/sh has been a Bourne shell.
> > and we were using basyh specific features.
> The scripts should work with any Bourne shell (if they don't, we have
> to fix *that*).
> What features are that? Unfortunately I don't have access to anything
> but Linux or FreeBSD ATM, so I cannot spot the problems easily - but
> it should be a high priority to fix this and I'll be happy to tackle
> it.
> Finally switching to /bin/bash surely doesn't help. The scripts
> probably work with a Korn shell (which is /bin/sh on AIX). Even if a
> system admin cares to install Bash, it will probably end up in
> /opt/bin or /usr/local/bin or something.
> Stefan
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message