> There are several reasons why we might need the flexibility of bash
If you are considering *BSD, etc. then the script should rather be plain sh, without bash' bells and whistles. Otherwise you'd end up with an install dependency of shells/bash...
I would, however, second the "don't make it sooo Linux (especially .rpm) centric".
BTW, what were the problems with OpenFTS when you tried it, Frank? It's been at least six month since I've installed it on one of my machines, and I can't really remember of any issues (other than you have tinker with Pg).
