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.
Will
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 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: