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

Re: pdksh -> posixness?

> I don't think we should plan as if we're going to only have one
> posix shell. 
I agree.  But this discussion (I thought) was mostly about having a fast,
small,  posix-compliant /bin/sh.  We've agreed that bash seems a bit
big to be run as sh all the time,  and that nothing else we've got is
much better (with the possible exception of pdksh).  I was suggesting that
we write a tiny posix-compliant thing for /bin/sh (and keep the others
around,  requiring that scripts that want non-posix stuff call the needed
shell explicitly),  and it seemed simplest to chop pdksh rather than write
one from the ground up.


|             harpo@udel.edu lowe@cis.udel.edu lowe@debian.org           |
|			http://www.cis.udel.edu/~lowe/		         |
|    PGP Public Key:  http://www.cis.udel.edu/~lowe/index.html#pgpkey    |
|            And if you on tight to what you think is your thing         |
|                you may find you're missing all the rest ...            |
|	         - Dave Matthews,  "Best of What's Around"               |

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: