Re: Bug in bash

To: Alan Shutko <ats@acm.org>
Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug in bash
From: Clint Adams <schizo@debian.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 10:05:34 -0400
Message-id: <[🔎] 20011002100534.B25118@dman.com>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 87heticfus.fsf@wesley.springies.com>; from ats@acm.org on Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 09:48:43AM -0400
References: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0109290013510.12667-100000@rubens> <3BB4F7C3.2020502@pobox.com> <20010929032754.X14582@wiggy.net> <[🔎] pzu1xin2qu.fsf@eeyore.ibcinc.com> <[🔎] 87heticfus.fsf@wesley.springies.com>

> That's not POSIX, that's SUS.  Completely different standard.  (POSIX
> is from IEEE, and I'd love to find it online, if available.)

They're not completely different.  Many portions of SUS seem to be
lifted verbatim from IEEE P1003.1.

Reply to:

References:
- Re: Bug in bash
  - From: Roderick Schertler <roderick@argon.org>
- Re: Bug in bash
  - From: Alan Shutko <ats@acm.org>

Prev by Date: Re: Bug in bash
Next by Date: Re: AMD related
Previous by thread: Re: Bug in bash
Next by thread: Re: Bug in bash
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread