diffs between /bin/sh and /bin/bash??
in [Mac Systems]
|
Prev: How to make a recording from a digital source (fiber) using an Intel 2007 MacBook Pro?
Next: How to make a recording from a digital source (fiber) using anIntel 2007 MacBook Pro?
From: Jolly Roger on 27 May 2010 09:53 In article <2010052613342216807-not(a)dotcom>, thepixelfreak <not(a)dot.com> wrote: > On 2010-05-26 12:27:13 -0700, Jolly Roger <jollyroger(a)pobox.com> said: > >>> > >>> Bash is a superset of sh. > >> > >> Really? > >> > >> sh-3.2# /bin/sh --version > >> GNU bash, version 3.2.48(1)-release (x86_64-apple-darwin10.0) > >> > >> sh-3.2# /bin/bash --version > >> GNU bash, version 3.2.48(1)-release (x86_64-apple-darwin10.0) > > > > Yes, really: > > > > <http://www.faqs.org/docs/bashman/bashref_122.html> > > > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourne_shell> > > > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bash> > > I'm very well aware that bash is a superset of bourne shell. My gripe > is that the binaries provided by Apple both show the very same BASH > version. If so, they *should* be the very same binaries and have the > same capabilities. I'm sorry, but, really, who cares? At the end of the day, as long as I can get my job done with either shell, that's all that matters to me. If it bothers you that much, how about filing a bug report or sending Apple feedback about it? -- Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts. JR
From: thepixelfreak on 1 Jun 2010 17:26 On 2010-05-28 08:52:31 -0700, Lewis <g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> said: > In message <2010052510030316807-not(a)dotcom> thepixelfreak > <not(a)dot.com> wrote: > >> I've noticed some differences in /bin/sh and /bin/bash shell script execution. > > that's because bin/sh is bash in 'compatible' mode. > > From the man page: > If bash is invoked with the name sh, it tries to mimic the startup > behavior of historical versions of sh as closely as possible, while > conforming to the POSIX standard as well. Bullshit. I've copied /bin/bash to a different directory as sh and it still fails to work in compatibility mode. -- thepixelfreak
From: thepixelfreak on 1 Jun 2010 17:27 On 2010-05-28 08:54:58 -0700, Lewis <g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> said: > In message <2010052613342216807-not(a)dotcom> thepixelfreak > <not(a)dot.com> wrote: >> I'm very well aware that bash is a superset of bourne shell. My gripe >> is that the binaries provided by Apple both show the very same BASH >> version. If so, they *should* be the very same binaries and have the >> same capabilities. > > No, that is 100% wrong. Please do explain why. Do you have any clue about revision control? > >> /bin/sh *IS* bash version 3.2.48 as is /bin/bash. And, yes I know you >> can vary behavior of a program depending on the value of $0 (the >> invocation name). AND if that were the case then there'd be no need for >> two binaries. A symlink or hardlink would be sufficient for the desired >> result. > > /bin/sh is often a hard link, but there's no rule saying it must be. > >> Further, if /bin/bash is a SUPERSET of /bin/sh it should be fully >> backward compatible with /bin/sh behavior and capability. Clearly in >> this case it is not. > > That's not how it works. -- thepixelfreak
From: thepixelfreak on 1 Jun 2010 17:28 On 2010-05-28 08:54:58 -0700, Lewis <g.kreme(a)gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> said: > In message <2010052613342216807-not(a)dotcom> thepixelfreak > <not(a)dot.com> wrote: >> I'm very well aware that bash is a superset of bourne shell. My gripe >> is that the binaries provided by Apple both show the very same BASH >> version. If so, they *should* be the very same binaries and have the >> same capabilities. > > No, that is 100% wrong. Please do explain why. Do you have any clue about revision control? > >> /bin/sh *IS* bash version 3.2.48 as is /bin/bash. And, yes I know you >> can vary behavior of a program depending on the value of $0 (the >> invocation name). AND if that were the case then there'd be no need for >> two binaries. A symlink or hardlink would be sufficient for the desired >> result. > > /bin/sh is often a hard link, but there's no rule saying it must be. > >> Further, if /bin/bash is a SUPERSET of /bin/sh it should be fully >> backward compatible with /bin/sh behavior and capability. Clearly in >> this case it is not. > > That's not how it works. -- thepixelfreak
From: Geoffrey S. Mendelson on 1 Jun 2010 18:09
thepixelfreak wrote: > Bullshit. I've copied /bin/bash to a different directory as sh and it > still fails to work in compatibility mode. It's the compile time options. See: http://www.linuxselfhelp.com/gnu/bash/html_chapter/bashref_9.html Look for "--enable-minimal-config" "This produces a shell with minimal features, close to the historical Bourne shell." /bin/sh was compiled from a source package with this option. /bin/bash was compiled from the SAME source package without it. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm(a)mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM New word I coined 12/13/09, "Sub-Wikipedia" adj, describing knowledge or understanding, as in he has a sub-wikipedia understanding of the situation. i.e possessing less facts or information than can be found in the Wikipedia. |