Re: ash/echo/POSIX/SUS
Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 30, 1999 at 09:06:54AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
>> If only there were a standard for such a beast, then we can put that into=
> our
>> policy. As it stands, all we have is POSIX.2. Raul has proposed a chang=
> e to
>> our policy so that -n has been explicitly allowed.=20
> No. POSIX already allowed it. You forced a policy proposal to mandate
POSIX allows the shell to implement -n. It certainly does not allow a
compliant script to use it. To do that means it must have required all
shells to do it.
The bit in the policy is referring to the scripts, not the shell.
> mystified. All this talk about echo -n, all the time and bits, and what
> we end up with is behavior that we already had, and another policy
> change. Are we trying to create a policy document or a distribution?
It's not about legalese to me. The main concern for me is whether ash can
survive if people start using features not required by POSIX in #!/bin/sh
scripts. echo may just be the thin end of the wedge.
--
Debian GNU/Linux 2.1 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
Reply to: