Re: ash/echo/POSIX/SUS
Hi,
>>"Herbert" == Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> writes:
Herbert> Since the behaviour of echo when -n is the operand is
Herbert> implementation defined, POSIX compliant scripts must not use
Herbert> it.
What does this have to do with ash? I thought ash was a shell
I could use instead of bash (you know, the readline dependency, etc)
to replace /bin/sh. If ash gratuitously breaks my system as some
kinda policy cop, then it is useless as a /bin/sh replacement, and I
would like a strong reminder placed all over the documentation and
web sites that ash is not a real shell meant for use on user systems
as /bin/sh, since it shall from time to time delibrately break your
system to flush ut bugs.
If you want to deprecate the use of as, just go right ahead.
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.
Enforcing it is fine; breaking the system is not a good means
of enforcing policy.
Find the scripts, and file bug reports. Release an
experimental ash; that people _who want to_ may install to flush bugs
out.
Delibrately breaking the system by being stricter than you
have to removes ash as a candidate for /bin/sh on all but toy
machines.
Herbert> We are talking about scripts and our policy. Currently
Herbert> those scripts violate the policy. So one of them must be
Herbert> changed.
Bullshit. Find the scripts, and file bug reports. Breaking
user systems out there is a lousy way of quality control.
Herbert> I don't think so. Having an inconsistency of this magnitude
Herbert> between the policy and reality is a really big worry to me.
And breaking unsuspecting systems is your solution? Jeez.
manoj
--
Don't tell any big lies today. Small ones can be just as effective.
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: