On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 13:59:08 +0100 Stephan Kulow <coolo@suse.de> wrote:
On 3/13/19 1:56 PM, Michal Suchánek wrote:
Bash has documentation. If implementation does not match documentation you can file a bug as much as you can against a POSIX-compliant shell. With bash being much more active project than most POSIX-compliant shells the bug is even much more likely to get resolved. And unlike POSIX-compliant shells bash has BASH_VERSION which tells you *exactly* what you are getting in case you need to support multiple versions that behave differently.
And if you're in need of writing shell scripts that are specific to bash versions, you're free to require /bin/bash as interpreter.
It is not always clear how to do that. I thought there is a way to switch rpm spec scriptlets to different shell but did not find how to do that for %build. Anyway, if we provide alternatives for /bin/sh you can assume any shell that claims to be vaguely bourne-compatible can end up as /bin/sh. All these shells have various bugs. Writing shell code that is bug-compatible with all shells the distribution ships is non-trivial. Some bugs are due to parser issues that are complex to fix and will not be resolved overnight. Ergo if we do provide alternatives for /bin/sh we cannot expect anything from /bin/sh anymore. Then you need to specify the interpreter for every shell script. Then there is no point in even having a /bin/sh. Thanks Michal -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org