X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
	:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=YvcmV4p0BLbu+jKg
	m3Lrh9wH/FaLdWrbdXrYWQFX9T030yfvM+WsJAAXUIqoHuErNolFue4zS4vy5ZKZ
	AndJ2gXEZwIpiqOAs8F5VV3mtl46JtrZezSopASG2Lpop4XzimqqhqRge6XrbjhX
	WAFYV34GegaIVaNkrts86gkUQtQ=
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
	:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=VRfwlVc13e6YQZ/MhbnIQv
	9qM8U=; b=FaqSpRxAGyQoM6z163DaTjrXUKfrLR6miAd+G0brsA7Dj9DZnZWlWE
	dsdgxHktAB66Ep1hjA3KioWqRBZU1xVeb7Ba3lAAd9mUIXmNpljQf4m6t37L9aoa
	wPtSFpqhuOVyvSOIqZmRMwtR3Cvl2yT7bsbSxFso+snUVpWJMvSVw=
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Authentication-Results:	sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found:	No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status:	No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=roe, xcu, Roe, 7908799
X-HELO:	mail-io0-f178.google.com
X-Google-DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=l4vxqxOf1nRHgDXbjw8vAhoGPqaRCndYIoAdy+hlfkk=; b=cNSFb0DYuocR28LPux3MawQPqdKtJQbFTjUDCUNiaQzgMQR+7HIncmwyX/PKeoHsah 3TVYXdlA5NJ6SjEYvFWia8nhYrnpJjDL3h7Fk2yVEgl7JdOGucPC9JO+hj8QXzXtslB3 qA4R/sRmkY3KxfIjZ4OzW5dJOobMUBYhZ/H18HoFPeLyi2p+7/ytJ5HAKLkQmtjYrBbP Fq79eqGYUuYdNGC7KAWwT6FNBriBJI2t6HF+Mtey2xKiH6D0hBrWwdmnBSFEnu/R8lAt VglMG8cHAsPVdhPCs2kQMd8cPA6kAgObkZDs1vDtfMsZgtKu+fpUFYLGiyKykHsW410r AohQ==
X-Gm-Message-State:	AMke39knLlOVHF978XwzOVdqr9jQT9IGJKNQ0mflBWeR7cI+knvuNunDkPea7GTavU7Ixw==
X-Received:	by 10.107.17.70 with SMTP id z67mr4772999ioi.37.1488315117986; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 12:51:57 -0800 (PST)
Subject:	Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: dash-0.5.9.1-1
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<20170227231247 DOT GA19383 AT dimstar DOT local DOT net> <58b4c978 DOT 5443ca0a DOT 5c0e DOT 03d7 AT mx DOT google DOT com>
From:	cyg Simple <cygsimple AT gmail DOT com>
Message-ID:	<10fdf67b-9960-7888-ad72-b67b1f2d95a9@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:52:15 -0500
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<58b4c978.5443ca0a.5c0e.03d7@mx.google.com>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes

On 2/27/2017 7:51 PM, Steven Penny wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 10:12:47, Duncan Roe wrote:
>> "we" being you and who else?
>> /bin/sh has been bash for a long time and I would prefer it stays that
>> way.
> 
> “That’s the way it’s always been done” is not a good reason to keep doing
> something. /bin/sh has been defined for 20 years, and it is not Bash:
> 
> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7908799/xcu/sh.html
> 
> If you want to write a Bash script, you should be using #!/bin/bash, not
> #!/bin/sh. If we are to continue using Bash, it should be for a good
> reason,
> like the one Eric presented, not just because you want to save 2
> characters on
> your shebang line.
> 

Ironic that *you* should make the same argument for using #!/bin/bash as
I've made to you about using #!/bin/dash.  If you want to ensure that
#!/bin/sh is a certain resemblance of a shell then you must test for it
and take other actions if not.  You cannot portably rely on /bin/sh
having certain qualities but you know that already.

Your argument is that dash is "more" POSIX conforming than bash as sh
and faster because its footprint is smaller.  Should we change, maybe
give it a test before the next release.  It really doesn't matter other
than the work required to make it so and the work required to help those
who get surprised.  But that doesn't mean you should expect /bin/sh to
be dash.  The idea is only sound because it uses less resources and when
we're talking about Windows a little resource makes a big difference.

-- 
cyg Simple

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -