Return to BSD News archive
Received: by minnie.vk1xwt.ampr.org with NNTP id AA2206 ; Mon, 01 Mar 93 10:49:23 EST Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.development:38 comp.os.386bsd.bugs:21 Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!olivea!charnel!psgrain!ee.und.ac.za!hippo!kudu!g89r4222 From: g89r4222@kudu.ru.ac.za (Geoff Rehmet) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.development,comp.os.386bsd.bugs Subject: Re: Is fixing /bin/sh worthwhile? Message-ID: <g89r4222.730649047@kudu> Date: 25 Feb 93 14:04:07 GMT References: <CONKLIN.93Feb23174603@talisman.kaleida.com> <1993Feb24.175756.7398@coe.montana.edu> Sender: news@hippo.ru.ac.za (Usenet News Admin) Organization: Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa Lines: 27 In <1993Feb24.175756.7398@coe.montana.edu> nate@cs.montana.edu (Nate Williams) writes: >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. YES!! I'd like to see a fixed /bin/sh as soon as possible!!! -- ============================csgr@alpha.ru.ac.za=============================== Geoff Rehmet, Parallel Processing Group, |#define DISCLAIMER These are my Computer Science Department, | ramblings, not the Rhodes University, RSA. | University's