home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!ira.uka.de!math.fu-berlin.de!unlisys!desert!max.IN-Berlin.DE!max.IN-Berlin.DE!not-for-mail
- From: berry@max.IN-Berlin.DE (Stefan Behrens)
- Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
- Subject: [BSD386] bash for /bin/sh is the best you can do!
- Date: 23 Nov 1992 00:36:31 +0100
- Organization: Private
- Lines: 23
- Message-ID: <1ep5idINNue@max.IN-Berlin.DE>
- References: <Bxx6zB.JDw@news.cso.uiuc.edu> <1992Nov19.035447.29105@moxie.hou.tx.us> <RICH.92Nov21115938@omicron.Rice.edu>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: max.in-berlin.de
- Summary: Use bash for /bin/sh
- Keywords: 386bsd bash /bin/sh
-
- In article <RICH.92Nov21115938@omicron.Rice.edu> Rich@rice.edu writes:
- [...about elm2.4...]
- > It won't compile right with the existing version of /bin/sh. You
- > need to copy 386BSD's bash onto /bin/sh.
- >
- >This may cause you problems when booting. It's also going to expose
- >all the sh dependent code in system shell scripts. Rich
-
- No, I think you're wrong, ash makes much more problems than bash!
- There have been so many warnings about using bash for /bin/sh. But for me
- it works great. I copied bash to /bin/sh two or three month ago, no
- problems yet, neither with booting nor with other system-dependig stuff!
- Using bash for /bin/sh means less problems with porting software, less
- problems with compatibility in general.
- At that time when I used ash, the first thing I had to do to `port'
- software was substituting all references to ` sh ' or `/bin/sh' to
- `/usr/local/bin/bash' and it worked, so I use bash as default now.
- I compiled most of the GNU stuff and the other available sources that
- were interesting for me with less than ten lines to patch (usually
- wrong prototypes for library functions). With ash many programs didn't
- compile or didn't run!
- --
- Stefan (berry@max.IN-Berlin.DE)
-