On Sep 26, 2014, at 10:36 AM, Eric Blake <eblake@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > . . . I _also_ agree that since function exports are NOT required by POSIX, > that it would be okay if we let /bin/bash continue to import functions > by default, but have bash invoked as /bin/sh refuse to do imports by > default. . . The more I see of how many bash-isms work when bash is invoked as /bin/sh, the more convinced I get that we need to either 1) make bash when invoked as /bin/sh fail those bash-isms 2) build a 'real' /bin/sh without those compiled in. This begs the definition of 'real', but IMHO if it's not in POSIX, it shouldn't be in 'real' /bin/sh Why this is bothering me today? There has been at least one instance of a group building a new bash, installing it, and finding the hard way that it didn't work at boot time. If /bin/sh had been a separate pared-down thing, they could have at least booted. I have always been unhappy with /bin/sh being a symlink to /bin/bash rather than a separate pared-down executable or with bash features turned off). The last couple of days only reinforces that opinion. Yours in haste, Steve _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
