Return to BSD News archive
Received: by minnie.vk1xwt.ampr.org with NNTP id AA2103 ; Thu, 25 Feb 93 10:11:47 EST Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.development:31 comp.os.386bsd.bugs:17 Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.development,comp.os.386bsd.bugs Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!usenet.coe.montana.edu!nate From: nate@cs.montana.edu (Nate Williams) Subject: Re: Is fixing /bin/sh worthwhile? Message-ID: <1993Feb24.175756.7398@coe.montana.edu> Sender: usenet@coe.montana.edu (USENET News System) Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, MSU, Bozeman Mt 59717 References: <CONKLIN.93Feb23174603@talisman.kaleida.com> Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1993 17:57:56 GMT Lines: 24 In article <CONKLIN.93Feb23174603@talisman.kaleida.com> conklin@kaleida.com writes: >There are a number of bugs in ash (/bin/sh) that prevent proper >operation of shell scripts. I run into them frequently in Configure >scripts, c-news, etc. > >I know many people have goto around these sort of problems by copying >bash to /bin/sh. But I'm attempting to fix the bugs. I fixed a >parsing bug last weekend, and I'm working on a quoting bug now. > >Fixing all the bugs in ash may be a significant task. I really don't >want to invest the time to do so if it is going to be "officially" >replaced by bash, zsh, pd-ksh, or whatever in a future release. As far as I'm concerned, I would *prefer* a working ash over a bash, zsh, pd-ksh, or anything simply because of size. Bash is a monster compared with ash. For distributing boot floppies, and just speed issues, ash is a much better solution. Nate -- opjnw@terra.oscs.montana.edu | Still trying to find a good reason for nate@cs.montana.edu | these 'computer' things. Personally, home #: (406) 586-0579 | I don't think they'll catch on - Don H.