Comment # 7 on bug 1195391 from Dirk Mueller

(In reply to Stefan Dirsch from comment #5)

> Is there a good reference about the differences between bourne shell and
> bash you could provide? 

not really, I typically test with "dash" and use "checkbashisms" (packaged in
factory and others) for clues on what goes wrong. 

> How can I test changes easily? Do we have some small shell being compatible
> to bourne shell but not compatible to bash, which would be recommended for
> testing? Apparently using "#!/bin/sh" doesn't do the job.

simply install "dash" and run the script with "dash" for local verification.
(or busybox-sh if you want, which is the actual target)

> What is the motivation for this? Do we plan to switch to a different shell
> (maybe for only some products) or do we want to be prepared for such a
> change - just in case? 

For now its a correctness problem, but there's a project where we need a very
minimal system, so busybox-sh will be /bin/sh (and there won't be a bin/bash). 

for openSUSE nothing is planned as far as I can say. while dash is faster in
startup (and I happen to like the package maintainer), I am not planning to
push it as default shell.