On Aug 7, 2012 9:21 AM, "Nicolas Sebrecht" <nsebrecht@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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). 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. > > >
