Ash Documentation?

[Paul Smith]

On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 11:48 -0400, Paul Fox wrote:
> for quite some time, ash was virtually identical to debian's
> "dash", except for source layout, and busybox config mods.
> 
> as i understood it (though i may be wrong on this point), "dash"
> is what is now used as ubuntu's /bin/sh.  if this is the case,
> then the ubuntu docs, and improvements, should all be applicable
> (to some extent) to ash.
> 
> am i way off base on this?

It is unquestionably true that Ubuntu was and is using dash as /bin/sh,
rather than bash.  They do ship bash as /bin/bash, for users etc.  I
know this because I'm constantly filing bugs with 3rd party toolkits
that naively expect /bin/sh to be bash.  They should either use
#!/bin/bash specifically (boo!) or else write their scripts to the POSIX
standard (yay!) and use #!/bin/sh.

The man page for sh on Ubuntu is a BSD-based man page.  I haven't really
reviewed it for accuracy and POSIX compliance, but it's very likely
closer than the bash man page.

As for the rest, I don't know.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul D. Smith <psmith at netezza.com>                       http://netezza.com
 "Please remain calm--I may be mad, but I am a professional."--Mad Scientist
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      These are my opinions--Netezza takes no responsibility for them.