Re: Yes but I don't understand ...

[David Selby <cygwin at pusspaws dot net>]

Randall R Schulz wrote:

> David,
>
> At 13:14 2003-08-05, David Selby wrote:
>
> > You are dead right, I tried
> >
> > /bin/bash <script>
> >
> > and it worked perfectly, but I am afraid I do not understand why ...
> > echo $BASH_VERSION
> > Tells me I have bash
> >
> > I call cygwin with ...
> > c:\cygwin\win\rxvt.exe -e \bin\bash --login -i
> > ie bash
> >
> > Where did ash (a stripped down bash?) come in ?
>
>
> As I understand it, it all goes back to the big bang...
>
>
> I don't understand the question. Cygwin has for a long time used ash 
> as it's /bin/sh. Ash is a POSIX compliant shell and is much 
> lighter-weight than BASH. For purposes such as interpreting commands 
> issuing from makefiles, it's faster start-up time makes it a better 
> choice.
>
> You script assumed BASH--that is, it used BASH-specific features. Thus 
> it should explicitly invoke bash in its #! line. The fact that most 
> Linuxes use BASH as their /bin/sh probably falsely led you to believe 
> that BASH was _the_ shell in POSIX-compliant systems. That's not true. 
> In fact, for a long time, even /bin/bash was a version 1.2 BASH, and 
> that was a far cry from what we now know as BASH.
I see the light
Dave


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/