Want to protect your cyber security and still get fast solutions? Ask a secure question today.Go Premium

x
  • Status: Solved
  • Priority: Medium
  • Security: Public
  • Views: 1100
  • Last Modified:

bash and sh-compatibility

bash claims to be sh-compatible in it's man-page. This seems to be wrong:

     echo 1>file
and
     echo 0>file
and
     # as many other examples as you like ..

is valid sh syntax.

Does somebody know how to tell bash to be sh-compatible?
Or is there a free (GPL or whatever) sh for Linux?
0
ahoffmann
Asked:
ahoffmann
  • 2
1 Solution
 
jlevieCommented:
If you are talking about the differences with using echo under sh vs echo under bash then you aren't actually talking about shell incompatiblity. In some implementations of sh echo is a built in and in other's it isn't. Furthermore, each system seems to have a different idea of exactly what echo does and how it behaves. If you examine very many spohisticated multi-platform scripts (or try to write same) you'll find that they frequently go to a lot of trouble to figure out what flavor of echo is available.

I'd be interested in places that you see incompatibility that  only involve the standard Bourne shell commands.
0
 
ahoffmannAuthor Commented:
damn, should have thought about built in echo, 'cause I'm used to some other dragons with it too ;-)

Anyway it behaves equal in both: bash and sh (Solaris, didn't check carefully)

> I'd be interested in places that you see incompatibility that  only involve the standard Bourne shell commands
see : command
0
 
jlevieCommented:
Personally I've never found any cases of valid Bourne shell syntax that Bash wouldn't execute, assuming that builtin vs not-builtin aren't an issue. The reverse is not true. Bash has some features (e.g., export, etc) that Bourne shell doesn't.
0

Featured Post

Receive 1:1 tech help

Solve your biggest tech problems alongside global tech experts with 1:1 help.

  • 2
Tackle projects and never again get stuck behind a technical roadblock.
Join Now