At least the following scripts in /etc/init.d: bootmisc halt.sh localmount modules numlock rmnologin urandom contain shell scripting expression "&> /dev/null". It may be, of course, that the intention is, indeed, to put the commands into background, but my gut feeling is that the intended meaning is to send all output to /dev/null, in which case, the occurences of "&>" should be replaced with ">/dev/null 2>&1", of course. The occurences of those "&>" are numerous.
I think that it use bash via /etc/init.d/runscript.sh: From bash: There are two formats for redirecting standard output and standard error: &>word and >&word Of the two forms, the first is preferred. This is seman
I think that it use bash via /etc/init.d/runscript.sh: From bash: There are two formats for redirecting standard output and standard error: &>word and >&word Of the two forms, the first is preferred. This is semantically equivalent to >word 2>&1
Looks like you are right. I was not aware of this (yet another) incompatibility of Bash with Bourne shell. [off topic] Sadly, under vanilla Bourne shell this would not even cause a sysntax error, but would result in a semantically different behaviour. Closing this as invalid.
