*BSD News Article 11866


Return to BSD News archive

Received: by minnie.vk1xwt.ampr.org with NNTP
	id AA2265 ; Mon, 01 Mar 93 10:51:31 EST
Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.development:47 comp.os.386bsd.bugs:30
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.development,comp.os.386bsd.bugs
Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!pacbell.com!unet!blunt!dsilvia
From: dsilvia@blunt.net.com ()
Subject: Re: Is fixing /bin/sh worthwhile?
Message-ID: <1993Feb26.035505.13816@unet.net.com>
Sender: news@unet.net.com
Nntp-Posting-Host: blunt
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies
References: <CONKLIN.93Feb23174603@talisman.kaleida.com> <1993Feb24.175756.7398@coe.montana.edu>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 03:55:05 GMT
Lines: 25

In article <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.
>
>
>Nate

I vote for size and speed, too!

Dave S.