Re: pdksh -> posixness?
- To: Will Lowe <harpo@UDel.Edu>, Chris Ulrich <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: Rob Browning <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- Subject: Re: pdksh -> posixness?
- From: Raul Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 15:17:58 -0400
- Message-id: <email@example.com>
- Mail-followup-to: Will Lowe <harpo@UDel.Edu>, Chris Ulrich <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Rob Browning <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- In-reply-to: <Pine.SOL.3.96.980730150712.20581Bfirstname.lastname@example.org>; from Will Lowe on Thu, Jul 30, 1998 at 03:11:28PM -0400
- References: <199807301842.LAA28817@kroner.ucdavis.edu> <Pine.SOL.3.96.980730150712.20581Bemail@example.com>
Will Lowe <harpo@UDel.Edu> wrote:
> In the interest of going small, fast and posix, is it possible that we
> can strip out all the non-posix stuff from pdksh and release it
> specifically as posixsh, which would install itself as /bin/sh and which
> we could then test for posix compliance?
I don't think we should plan as if we're going to only have one
posix shell. And I like this idea of using update-alternatives
to select /bin/sh
Finally, could someone spell out for me what about ash is non-posix?
The posix documentation isn't freely available, or I'd look it up
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com