Mailing-List: contact ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Subject: Re: sh versus bash
References: <3.0.6.32.20010129175321.009c3490@alphalink.com.au>
From: Stefan Bodewig <bodewig@apache.org>
Date: 29 Jan 2001 09:40:37 +0100
In-Reply-To: Peter Donald's message of "Mon, 29 Jan 2001 17:53:21 +1100"
Message-ID: <m34ryibvju.fsf@bodewig.bost.de>
Lines: 29
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.1 (Channel Islands)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Peter Donald <donaldp@apache.org> 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