Autoconf's suggestion to use bash as /bin/sh
Fri Jun 22 01:37:00 GMT 2001
Earnie Boyd wrote:
> I suppose Cliff Hones had a question and wasn't just posting to be
> posting and I assume the hidden question to be "Why does Cygwin not use
> bash as sh?" and that is covered in the FAQ. However, once upon a time
> a long time ago Cygwin did use bash as sh. It was discovered that
> scripts and software builds would happen more quickly if ash was used as
> sh. So the next release of Cygwin after the discovery included ash as
> sh. This doesn't prevent you from using it now, simply `cp
> /bin/bash.exe /bin/sh.exe' and you'll be compliant with the autoconf
> suggestion. However, you would have slowed down the functioning of
> Cygwin scripts and package builds.
I didn't really mean to be asking a hidden question. Indeed I have
wondered why Cygwin uses ash for sh, and many thanks for the
explanation. BTW, I couldn't find it in the FAQ - and I've just
looked at all occurrences of bash (of which there are many!).
My main reason for posting was simply the conflicting advice; given
the frequent comments of "you shouldn't suggest that" when people
raise the issue of copying or linking bash to sh, it seemed odd that a
Red Hat document should be doing just that.
And finally, maybe it would help if the "don't do that"
messages gave a reason why it shouldn't be done,
or at least a reference. The more understanding, the fewer
posts we'll see. [My guess is that the reason is the usual
one - it's far easier to help people with problems if they
have a full standard installation.]
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
More information about the Cygwin