From: mark south    
   Subject: Re: 6.10 defaults to "dash" for shell?   
   Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 12:04:41 +0100   
   User-Agent: Pan/0.14.2.91 (As She Crawled Across the Table (Debian GNU/Linux))   
   Message-ID:    
   Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.ubuntu   
   References:      
        
   <515bbdF1ir5g8U1@mid.individual.net>   <   
   J6dnWSMJ9jaQDPYnZ2dnUVZ_o3inZ2d@pcisys.net>   
   Reply-To: marksouth2000@yahoo.co.uk   
   MIME-Version: 1.0   
   Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1   
   Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit   
   NNTP-Posting-Host: 85.1.11.53   
   X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 85.1.11.53   
   X-Trace: news.bluewin.ch 1169118282 85.1.11.53 (18 Jan 2007 12:04:42 +0100)   
   Organization: Bluewin AG   
   Lines: 26   
   Complaints-To: abuse@bluewin.ch   
   X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1   
   Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.co   
   !nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!130.59   
   10.21.MISMATCH!kanaga.switch.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news   
   ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.bluewin.ch!not-for-mail   
   Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.os.linux.ubuntu:8329   
      
   On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 20:36:55 -0600, ts wrote:   
      
   > On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:33:35 +0100, mark south wrote:   
   >    
   >> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 22:27:58 -0600, ts wrote:   
   >>    
   >>> If you write a Bash   
   >>> script, you should ensure that it is invoked by bash.  Writing a bash   
   >>> script and expecting /bin/sh to understand it is just plain broken.   
   >>    
   >> Indeed.  But writing bash and requiring bash alone is clearly a different   
   >> meaning of "portable" from the one I am accustomed to, and more in line   
   >> with the "embrace, extend, extinguish" philosophy of "portability".   
   >    
   > I'm not advocating writing scripts that depend on bash-specific syntax,   
   > merely accepting that they exist.  Now, back to the original topic.    
   > Assume you have two bash-specific scripts, one which starts with #!/bin/sh   
   > and one which starts with #!/bin/bash.  Which one is more portable?   
      
   Neither, in any normal sense of the term "portable".  They will BOTH only   
   work with bash. However, only the latter is correctly coded, since it can   
   reasonably be expected to run, while the other is reasonably expected to   
   fail.   
      
   Now let's drop this.  You can go off and learn about portability and I can   
   go out to get my lunchtime martini.   
   --- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5   
    * Origin: Omicron Theta BBS (1:261/20)