Re: [PATCH] latest ash has broken 'echo' command
On Oct 24, Clint Adams wrote:
> > No, the issue is what behavior Debian systems (and other operating
> > systems based on the Linux kernel) expect "echo" to have. Judging
> > from the comments from the LSB list (and I think it's safe to assume
> > we want to comply with LSB, whether or not it's officially promulgated
>
> I am amazed by the number of different standards with which people
> assume that Debian wishes to "comply," all contradictory.
AFAIK, there is no contradiction between POSIX and LSB; LSB specifies
a superset of POSIX.2 capabilities. POSIX.2 allows flags for echo;
presumably LSB will specify which flags echo must support, and how
they will be supported.
I agree there is a contradiction between SUS and established practice.
Of course, if we wanted to comply with all standards, we couldn't.
But I think it's more reasonable to comply with established practice
(which LSB is generally designed to codify, so everyone programming
for Linux-based OSes can expect certain things from the operating
environment) than the the Single Unix Specification, if only because
Gnu's Not Unix ;-).
Chris
--
=============================================================================
| Chris Lawrence | Visit my home page! |
| <quango@watervalley.net> | http://www.lordsutch.com/chris/ |
| | |
| Open Directory Editor | Join the party that opposed the CDA |
| http://dmoz.org/ | http://www.lp.org/ |
=============================================================================
Reply to: