[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Portable equivalent of "type -p"?

[You (Mark Baker)]
>On Mon, Feb 09, 1998 at 10:00:51PM -0500, Adam P. Harris wrote:
>> Which doesn't work with 'ash', of course.

>That's irrelevant. If a script doesn't work on ash but is posix compliant,
>that's a bug in ash. There's no policy requirement for scripts to work with
>ash, only with posix shells.

Well, you're literally right, but I wonder if you've 
gandered Policy v2.4.0.0, Sec 3.3.4:

 Restrict your script to POSIX features when possible so that it may use 
 /bin/sh as its interpreter. If your script works with ash, it's probably
 POSIX compliant, but if you are in doubt, use /bin/bash.

I was simply pointing out that this recommendation in policy is not to be 
taken too literally, and in fact 'ash' isn't very POSIXly correct after 
all.  Some developers---not you, clearly---might say "well, 'command -v' 
doesn't work in ash, it must be non-POSIX.

[Please, next time, Mark, don't assume I'm a total idiot.]

.....A. P. Harris...apharris@onShore.com...<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to: