Re: [PATCH] latest ash has broken 'echo' command
Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 22, 1999 at 02:22:21PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
>
>> Because of this bit in our policy:
> Again, what's your point? If a script doesn't behave properly it's a bug
Well my point is that (after potato is released) we should either change
the policy because *so many* scripts break it as it now stands, or fix all
those scripts (that's going to be monumental) in which case the change in ash
would not matter.
User shell scripts don't count. After all, user shell scripts can use and
have used any bashisms that they like, and that has never meant that NetBSD
or I had to implement any of them for ash.
> against the script. But you're not doing users a service by breaking
> things because you think they're wrong. Ash had a behavior. Its behavior
You're right that *our* ash had a behaviour. It's GNU's behaviour. Suprise
surprise. I copied echo.c across from shell-utils a couple years back
because NetBSD's ash insisted that -n come before -e. So echo -e -n or
echo -ne would not work. They still don't work with the current NetBSD
version.
The fact of the matter for ash is, do we want it to be a shell that can only
run POSIX compliant scripts (defined as scripts that can execute with all
POSIX compliant shells), or do we want it to be a shell that includes all
the optional features allowed by POSIX so that it can run shell scripts
that aren't POSIX compliant?
--
Debian GNU/Linux 2.1 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
Reply to: