On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 05:21:47PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 02:16:19PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > I wonder if zsh is in the same league.  Do we support people who do
> > SHELL_PATH=/bin/zsh and bend over backwards when it breaks?
> 
> I tried "make SHELL_PATH=zsh test", but had trouble seeing the test
> output for all of the errors being spewed to stderr. ;)
> 
> Certainly this:
> 
>   $ zsh ./t0000-basic.sh -v -i
>   > [...]
>   test_cmp:1: command not found: diff -u
>   not ok 4 - pretend we have a fully passing test suite
> 
> is not especially encouraging (it looks like running "$FOO bar" does not
> word-split $FOO). I am not a zsh user, though, so there may be ways to
> convince it to be more POSIX-y (e.g., just calling it as "sh").

I use zsh.  It's possible to convince it to be more POSIXy by saying
"emulate sh" or invoking it via a symlink called sh.  However, having
said that, I don't recommend it.  I set /bin/sh to zsh on my Debian
system and a lot of things broke.  Early versions of Mac OS X did that,
too, and they stopped because it was very broken.

As for ksh, I don't know whether you want to kill support for just ksh93
or mksh as well.  I've generally had good experience with mksh as
/bin/sh when I've tried it, and it's at least semi-supported in Debian
because it meets Debian's POSIX-plus requirements.
-- 
brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US
+1 832 623 2791 | http://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only
OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b: 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187