Stupid bash question
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com
Wed Dec 12 13:58:16 UTC 2007
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> : [1] http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/gnustandards/gnustandards/standards.texi
>> :
>>
>> Thanks, Ralf, for enlightening me. I wrote "new coding standards",
>> above, in response to Stepan Kasal's remark that "GNU Coding Standards
>> now declare ...". I suppose the latter is literally true even if the
>> Standard was defined in 1992.
>>
>> Of course, with this new knowledge, I will feel as free as a bird to
>> boldly ignore the Standard (in this respect) seeing how several other
>> prominent linux executables (busybox, lvm, dump/restore, halt, to name
>> a few) have been blithely ignoring it for more than a decade. ½:-)
> Well, of cause it's everybody's freedom to ignore the "insights" others
> have accumulated over many years. But also consider, there are good
> reasons why these recommendations exist and why some people consider
> programs changing their behavior upon program name to be mal-designed.
Why is it any more/less significant as a source of error than anything
else on the command line, and is it really worth giving up shared-text
pages when other copies are likely to be executing (like cp/ln/mv)?
And doesn't /bin/sh have some differences with /bin/bash even though
they are the same - and isn't that a GNU-ism?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com
More information about the fedora-list
mailing list