From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 14:02:04 +0400 From: Alexey Tourbin To: devel@altlinux.ru Message-ID: <20031009100204.GZ1726@julia.office.altlinux.ru> Mail-Followup-To: devel@altlinux.ru References: <20031008143909.GU1726@julia.office.altlinux.ru> <20031008181830.W22705@elefant.dgtu.donetsk.ua> <20031008152357.GX1726@julia.office.altlinux.ru> <20031008223440.208a70e0.dav@altlinux.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="xIVvx4XxNQcAboQ3" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031008223440.208a70e0.dav@altlinux.ru> Subject: [devel] Re: bash vs sh policy X-BeenThere: devel@altlinux.ru X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: ALT Devel discussion list List-Id: ALT Devel discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 10:02:07 -0000 Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Post: --xIVvx4XxNQcAboQ3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 10:34:40PM +0400, Dmitry Vukolov wrote: > Где можно почитать про стандартный shell и понимаемые им конструкции? > Достаточно ли тестирования на работоспособность с ash для определения, > что скрипт использует только стандартные возможности? Вообще, со "стандартным шеллом" есть некоторый конфуз. De facto стандартным шеллом считается чистый Bourne Shell, вещь вполоне себе хорошо определенная. Но стандарт POSIX определяет другой shell. Вот что об этом написано в /usr/share/doc/zsh-*/Zsh_Guide/zshguide01.html: ... Some Linux systems also have another simpler Bourne shell clone, ash; as it's simpler, it's more like the original Bourne shell. Some more modern operating systems talk about `the POSIX shell'. This is an attempt to standardize UNIX shells; it's most like the Korn shell, although, a bit confusingly, it's often just called sh, because the standard says that it should be. Usually, this just means you get a bit extra free with your sh and it still does what you expect. --xIVvx4XxNQcAboQ3 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/hTIcfBKgtDjnu0YRAsOxAKDDCphg5KgHRoUer/rbMYkIUOpjsgCfQXZq /kg3Q9AuTkt1i7XWajDTxBM= =NDM9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --xIVvx4XxNQcAboQ3--