So will test be grandfathered?

[Thomas Hood <jdthood@aglu.demon.nl>]

Manoj suggested this language for 10.1:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>  10.1
> 
>   Except for the following shell builtins, additional commands provided
>   by a Debian shell installed in /bin/sh shall be considered to have the
>   same status as executables in the filesystem for the purpose of name
>   conflicts with other packages. As a result, they must either provide
>   the same functionality as the other program or else discuss with the
>   other maintainer and debian-devel which one should be renamed.
> 
> 
> Note:
> A Posix-conformant shell is allowed to build in *anything*, and if
> it's not a Posix-specified utility that's being built in, then it can
> have *any behavior whatsoever*.  The presence of two commands with
> conflicting behaviour adds an unacceptable uncertainty when scripts
> are executed, and this has to be resolved.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------


Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> wrote:
> What we do still need is the list of grandfathered builtins.


While we wait for the official list, can we at least assume that "test"
will be grandfathered, and consequently that "-a" and "-o" should be
avoided?

-- 
Thomas Hood