3 ms·
Why not build for POSIX sh, instead? It's more, umm, standard, and can be expected to run on any OS built in the past decade or more. It's equally character-bui
by SwellJoe 10y ago
Why not build for POSIX sh, instead? It's more, umm, standard, and can be expected to run on any OS built in the past decade or more. It's equally character-building, if you've been accustomed to building for modern bash (at least, it was for me). I haven't seen an actual Bourne shell in maybe 20 years.
- yjftsjthsd-h 10y agoPosix is a great standard, but you need an implementation to actually run (and test) on. I've used dash for this as well, but heirloom sh should be pretty close (and at worst probably a subset and therefore safe).