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=hRjmM4zdBOlYssJC
	ZvKE6OYxatgZSdogPU58lfyQd+B8z+Pp5RakXEQfGgqW37Bh3iLYUMgtRgOqT3iV
	p+5TQ5zsdiTIQYaOy5HGn4zOvphF5GfuhrZEw0dS5IE26KcCVodSO5KtHK/Q6amX
	x/h/ZZUbUh8HX2JmlNzv72W5zzM=
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=aXMWrQzolzcO8Q0ofbo6me
	DGYn8=; b=pxmhG4EGlBSTeo94B02SV9w+xFkSbgun60yI6BHcxP5U59XkOOyC/j
	Uk06ndqKCDpoggYSKb0GkKNMvTR8Es4mNKGHyUkAmC2r/mHSHTEOYRjnr79jfGcs
	UiClDOZzLtCCc/ZDjzSn9cRaUIe/YOCBKa4hmbm2DryDdcKGWSaSQ=
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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=H*Ad:U*yselkowitz, H*M:cygwin, H*F:U*yselkowitz, Hx-languages-length:1032
X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com
Subject: Re: How to install a custom permanent postinstall handler?
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <838469265 DOT 20160401235308 AT yandex DOT ru> <87a8lcicxg DOT fsf AT Rainer DOT invalid> <5700975A DOT 3070002 AT cygwin DOT com> <87y48vqkfx DOT fsf AT Rainer DOT invalid>
From: Yaakov Selkowitz <yselkowitz AT cygwin DOT com>
Message-ID: <57015B97.3010401@cygwin.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 13:06:15 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87y48vqkfx.fsf@Rainer.invalid>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes

On 2016-04-03 01:24, Achim Gratz wrote:
> Yaakov Selkowitz writes:
>> I am not in favour of /bin/sh being alternatives-able.
>
> I'd posit that it should not be bash then and somwone else might
> reasonably want a different /bin/sh, perhaps even bash.  Which is
> exactly why the alternatives system exists.

Unfortunately the reality is that not all #!/bin/sh scripts are 100% 
POSIX compliant, nor am I convinced that all the possible shells are 
interchangeable either.  Ultimately this would lead to unpredictable 
(and difficult to support) behaviour for scripts.

>> The *proper* course of action is to use the shebang for the script
>> interpreter you require, i.e. /bin/dash.
>
> It's perfectly OK to use /bin/sh (I'd even recommend it) if all you want
> is a POSIX shell.

True, but the OP said "my scripts rely on ASH/DASH functionality that is 
not present in BASH".  If you use functionality specific to a given 
shell, then you have to shebang that shell!

-- 
Yaakov

--
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