On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 05:21:47PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 02:16:19PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > I wonder if zsh is in the same league. Do we support people who do > > SHELL_PATH=/bin/zsh and bend over backwards when it breaks? > > I tried "make SHELL_PATH=zsh test", but had trouble seeing the test > output for all of the errors being spewed to stderr. ;) > > Certainly this: > > $ zsh ./t0000-basic.sh -v -i > > [...] > test_cmp:1: command not found: diff -u > not ok 4 - pretend we have a fully passing test suite > > is not especially encouraging (it looks like running "$FOO bar" does not > word-split $FOO). I am not a zsh user, though, so there may be ways to > convince it to be more POSIX-y (e.g., just calling it as "sh"). I use zsh. It's possible to convince it to be more POSIXy by saying "emulate sh" or invoking it via a symlink called sh. However, having said that, I don't recommend it. I set /bin/sh to zsh on my Debian system and a lot of things broke. Early versions of Mac OS X did that, too, and they stopped because it was very broken. As for ksh, I don't know whether you want to kill support for just ksh93 or mksh as well. I've generally had good experience with mksh as /bin/sh when I've tried it, and it's at least semi-supported in Debian because it meets Debian's POSIX-plus requirements. -- brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US +1 832 623 2791 | http://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b: 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature