On Aug 7, 2012 9:21 AM, "Nicolas Sebrecht" <nsebrecht@piing.fr> wrote:
The 07/08/12, Tom Gundersen wrote:
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 1:21 AM, David Benfell <benfell@parts-unknown.org>
wrote:
But that latter is an issue. It may break an (I assume) unknown number of existing scripts if used for sh, so I think the likely conclusion would be that *both* bash (for sh compatibility) and zsh would have to be installed. I'm not opposed to this, but I'll certainly concede that there are valid points to be made in opposition.
zsh emulates sh when invoked with that name (and so goes for ksh).
If I understand correctly there are known issues with the various shells' emulation of sh. That's why bash will not go away. Just to be clear: We are just using zsh as the interactive shell on the instal media, not installing it by default, nor using it for sh.
We need /bin/bash and also /bin/sh to be provided by bash,
For /bin/bash I understand but for /bin/sh I don't think so.
Why /bin/bash is required? Is it because scripts have this shebang or the way they are written?
Both.