Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Message-ID: <19991111022216.A12691@ba.best.com> Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 02:22:16 -0500 From: Glenn Spell To: cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Subject: /bin/sh (Was: getopts problem) Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com References: <199911091350 DOT NAA00636 AT uksn71> <19991109090415 DOT A3345 AT cygnus DOT com> <19991110023536 DOT A27087 AT ba DOT best DOT com> <19991110160540 DOT A15242 AT cygnus DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i In-Reply-To: <19991110160540.A15242@cygnus.com>; from "Chris Faylor" on Wed, Nov 10, 1999 at 04:05PM Organization: the aerie On 10 Nov 1999 around 4:05PM (-0500) Chris Faylor wrote: > On Wed, Nov 10, 1999 at 02:35:36AM -0500, Glenn Spell wrote: > > >Another solution is: > > > > > > Of course most UNIX implementations of /bin/sh do not have a > builtin 'getopts' implementation. I didn't know that. > I'd like to request that you add some way of identifying your > version of ash so that it will be obvious what somebody's using. > Otherwise I foresee confusion on the cygwin mailing list. Sure, no problem... except, I'm not a programmer and I don't know right off hand how to go about doing that. Any suggestions? I can also post the source (next week) if that'd help... or I can take it back down if you'd like. > >Frankly, I believe /bin/sh should be the "system" shell for > >Cygwin, just as it is for FreeBSD and NetBSD. In fact, I only > >joined the developers list when Chris posted "Just say no to > >ash"... I intended to start hollering and screaming... but before > >I got my information together, he changed his mind. > > Actually, I posted it as a question and asked for feedback, as I > usually do with these things. Sorry, my remarks above were "embellished". I thought that would be obvious. :-( > I don't recall you providing any feedback but I could be mistaken. I did not. I was searching all over for opinions and data and trying to correlate the info found into something cohesive... and before I got prepared, the window of opportunity had passed... so I went on to other things. Oh yea... I didn't give any immediate feedback from personal knowledge simply because I'm not personally knowledgable about the relevant issues (but I am good at forming opinions :-). > >When it comes to an open source posix compatible Bourne type > >shell, ash is as good as it gets. (Anyone ever try running a > >miminally configed bash in posix mode calling it as "sh". No > >thank you, at least... not on Cygwin.) > > Except that I don't believe that ash actually *is* Posix compatible The maintainer of the Debian port seems to think it is. The tests I ran on ash with the bash tests "seemed" to indicate that it might be. It was hard for me to rewrite the bash tests and remove the "bashisms" so I gave up on it. Also, I downloaded the test stuff from NIST but couldn't figure out how to use it. :-) In other words, you may be right... I really don't know. But then again, I believe there are some very knowledgable folks involved with FreeBSD and NetBSD and these people seem to have no problem at all with ash being the system shell. > and it's not really that robust. It is riddled with small buffers > which are easy to overrun, causing random errors. Interesting. Again, I'm not at all knowledgable about that kind of stuff. Perhaps others will share more thoughts on this. -glenn -- ________________________________________ _ _____ ) )_ _ (__\____o /_/_ | ) Glenn Spell ) >-----._/_/__]> )________________________________________) `0 | -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com