Shell scripts requiring bash

[Mike Frysinger]

On Monday 19 March 2012 16:27:41 David Miller wrote:
> From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com>
> > On Mon, 19 Mar 2012, David Miller wrote:
> >> All of our scripts in the libc tree should be POSIX shell scripts and
> >> therefore there is no reason to require BASH explicitly anywhere.
> > 
> > I'd tend to agree with that for scripts that get installed - it would be
> > good for them to work on systems without bash - but for the build and
> > test process I think it's reasonable to use bash (just like various
> > other GNU tools are needed).
> 
> I can't think of any bash specific feature that is absolutely necessary
> nor makes life that much easier, even in the tests.
> 
> A POSIX shell provides everything might need.

Ulrich said "no" to changing ldd to POSIX shell.  mostly related to the set 
opt detection.  should be easy to locate the threads in the archive on the 
topic ...

but currently, you can't change those to /bin/sh w/out more work than just 
tweaking the shebang
-mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/attachments/20120319/40ead875/attachment.sig>