Found a script on sourceforge.net  - "checkbashisms".
Downloaded that and ran it against /etc/init.d

ugly.

Oh well, it was a thought.



-----Original Message-----
From: Howard, Chris 
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 3:34 PM
To: 'Konstantin Olchanski'
Cc: SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS
Subject: RE: bash bugs - alternative shell

I happen to have a SL 6.5 system here so I set  /bin/sh to point
to /bin/dash instead of /bin/bash.

The system did not come up in a usable condition.

So yes, there are bash specifics in the init scripts.



-----Original Message-----
From: Konstantin Olchanski [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 3:03 PM
To: Howard, Chris
Cc: SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS
Subject: Re: bash bugs - alternative shell

On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 04:33:17PM +0000, Howard, Chris wrote:
> 
> I'm wondering if the quickest fix for all of the bash bug stuff
> coming out now is to replace bash with a different shell.
> 
> For instance, I see that I have /bin/ksh, why not just link
> that to /bin/bash and ride out the storm?
> 
> Is that an alternative?
> Is there any large subsystem that relies on a bash specific feature?
>

For interactive use, most people switched from /bin/sh to /bin/tcsh back
in the mid-1990-ies. (Bash, ksh, zsh came out much later).

For scripting, all shells have bizarre syntax, if your script has "if" statements
or loops, you are better off doing it in perl (or in perl's alternative of the day).

-- 
Konstantin Olchanski
Data Acquisition Systems: The Bytes Must Flow!
Email: olchansk-at-triumf-dot-ca
Snail mail: 4004 Wesbrook Mall, TRIUMF, Vancouver, B.C., V6T 2A3, Canada