Re: ash/echo/POSIX/SUS
Hi,
>>"Herbert" == Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> writes:
Herbert> * I released a version of ash with echo that was SUS
Herbert> compliant (this is also POSIX compliant). This was
Herbert> foolish because we're less than 2 weeks away from the
Herbert> freeze and that we've got a huge number of scripts that
Herbert> aren't POSIX compliant in this respect.
Is it your contention that an echo that accepts -n is
violating POSIX? Can you quote, chapter and verse, please?
Herbert> * For the release after potato, we need to make a decision
Herbert> on whether to change the policy to not requrie POSIX
Herbert> compliance on #!/bin/sh scripts or actually enforcing it.
I think some (not so) common sense should also be applied. If
the long standing behaviour is allowed as implementatgion defined by
POSIX, I think we should continue the behaviour since
a) it does not violate POSIX
b) It shall not break a gazillion scripts.
Where does policy say that optional and implementation defined
nuances of POSIX programs are to be deprecaed?
Herbert> So let us stop wasting time and concentrate on the release.
If the old behaviour is continued, even less time shall be
wasted.
manoj
--
Try to value useful qualities in one who loves you.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
Reply to: