*BSD News Article 11735


Return to BSD News archive

Received: by minnie.vk1xwt.ampr.org with NNTP
	id AA2102 ; 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.