On Thursday 27 March 2008, Frans Pop wrote: > So I guess this should be turned into an upstream wishlist bug to > implement support for -x as a substitute for the old behavior. After thinking about this a bit, could it be that the old behavior was a deliberate compromise between having a separate '-x' option or just doing the expected thing in most cases without needing the option? That would seem to be a "busybox kind of choice": keeping things small while maximizing functionality. In general I'd think that users would be more interested in what's running inside the shell than in the shell itself. If that is true, then someone reporting it as a bug at some point and "fixing" it is probably inevitable, but also _does_ make it a regression. Cheers, FJP
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.