Nicolas Sebrecht <nsebrecht@piing.fr> writes:
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).
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?
Well, all the canon arch scripts use #!/bin/bash, afaik[1] . Other than that, while I use zsh regularly and love it, a move to having it as the default shell would definitely require a lot of testing, if only because bash has become so ubiquitous that I'd worry about breakage due to non-POSIX "bashisms" being possibly relied on by a lot of scripts. Footnotes: [1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/DeveloperWiki:Bash_Coding_Style -- Jeremiah Dodds github : https://github.com/jdodds freenode : exhortatory