[ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: dash-0.5.9.1-1
Mon Feb 27 23:13:00 GMT 2017
On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 09:08:55AM -0800, Steven Penny wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 11:46:08, cyg Simple wrote:
> > If *your* script has a dependency to run using *dash* instead of *sh*
> > then you _must_ use #!/bin/dash anyway.
> I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Dash is. Dash is a
> minimal shell, similar to the "sh" defined by POSIX:
> So saying "a dependency to run using *dash*" makes about as much sense as saying
> "Cygwin has a dependency to run using Cygwin".
> > And what I _*I*_ don't want dash as /bin/sh? You see not everyone in the
> > community will agree.
> With respect to the community, yes of course you get a say. If the community
> doesn???t agree on this we will continue to use Bash. However you do not get a say
> with respect to the standard. The POSIX standard specified that /bin/sh is the
> shell I have linked above. Bash is a superset of that, so by definition those
> extra features are not defined or guaranteed to exist. When writing /bin/sh
> scripts, you should be assuming the users /bin/sh only has those features
> defined by POSIX. Example:
> #!/bin/bash -> script that follows might have Bashisms
> #!/bin/dash -> script that follows might have Dashisms (echo -n, local)
> #!/bin/sh -> script that follows should be a POSIX script
> > You can make the suggestion to those using your script to do so otherwise but
> > forcing dash as /bin/sh worldwide isn't something you can actually do.
> Yes we certainly can. Debian and Ubuntu have already done this.
"we" being you and who else?
/bin/sh has been bash for a long time and I would prefer it stays that way.
OTOH, I have started prefacing scripts with
to be on the safe side. "-p" stops bash from importing functions from the
Cheers ... Duncan.
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
More information about the Cygwin