Nicolas Sebrecht <nsebrecht@xxxxxxxx> writes: > The 07/08/12, Tom Gundersen wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 1:21 AM, David Benfell <benfell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
