Re: what options do we have was Re: POSIX shell\; bash ash pdksh \& /bin/sh
Hi,
>>"Herbert" == Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> writes:
>> Actually, ash is rather more restrive than bash is at least,
>> and from what I can tell, even compared to pdksh; and fails on more
>> scripts than the other two, so it is less suited as a /bin/sh
>> replacement.
Herbert> Give one POSIX script that fails with ash and works with
Herbert> bash/pdksh.
Not an issue. There are more than one scripts that have
traditiojnally worked on Debian machines that shall fail with ash as
a /bin/sh. That is bad.
Remember, we are talking about more than Debian scripts.
>> We should be decreasing the chances of /bin/sh falling over,
>> rather than increasing it.
Herbert> All scripts using /bin/sh should conform to POSIX.
Herbert> Otherwise it's a bug. This is our current policy.
Our policy only governs Debian scripts. We should also be
tolerant of non-debian scripts, and they do not come under the
purview of Debian policy.
We generally try to be nice to our users. We do not
gratuitously and sudeenly start breaking scripts on their machine. We
already have a stereotype to combat.
manoj
--
"On the market, there can be no such thing as exploitation." Murray
Rothbard
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: