Xref: utzoo comp.sys.att:2006 comp.unix.questions:4969 comp.unix.wizards:5997
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!cmcl2!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.sys.att,comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Non-standard shell and su.
Message-ID: <6974@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: 7 Jan 88 03:17:29 GMT
References: <200@icus.UUCP> <264@ho7cad.ATT.COM> <8389@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 13

In article <8389@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP> dawn!stpeters@steinmetz.UUCP (Dick St.Peters) writes:
>This can be very dangerous if any of your scripts expect to use
>symlinks to reach remote parts of a filesystem:
>	cd <symlink>
>	cd ..
>and you're back where you began, which is not how other shells behave
>and is probably not what your script expected.

Lots of other shells behave this way; ours for example.

I doubt that many scripts really would plan on the 4.3BSD /bin/sh
behavior occurring in such a case.  Far more likely, they're
expecting the behavior of ksh or the BRL Bourne shell.