| 1 |
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 09:59:21 -0400 |
| 2 |
Michael Mol <mikemol@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > The binaries are usually POSIX-compliant, whereas the builtins may |
| 5 |
> > include extra bashisms (which tend to break apps expecting just |
| 6 |
> > the basic POSIX behaviour) |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I haven't encountered POSIX-dependent apps breaking on bash, but I |
| 9 |
> have encountered the reverse. My most annoying experience was when I |
| 10 |
> tried building cinelerra on Debian a few years back. Cinelerra's |
| 11 |
> script started with #!/bin/sh, but depended on bashisms--and I was |
| 12 |
> running dash. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
So you've also run into clueless devs and maintainers who know |
| 15 |
almost nothing about shells? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Your example is an extreme one :-), but it's common enough to find |
| 18 |
bashisms in scripts with an sh shebang |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Alan McKinnnon |
| 22 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives