[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Public service announcement about Policy 10.4

On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 08:44:17AM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
> Steven Langasek wrote:
> > One might as well be able to expand "posh" as the "Pathologically
> > Overstrict SHell"

> Well, if, contrary to fact, the idea were widely supported then posh
> could be adapted so that it implemented the minimum set of features
> that Debian expected sh scripts to have.  Then posh could be used to
> test whether scripts were compliant.  I gather that that was the idea
> behind posh.

> > while Policy's mandate of POSIX sh is important as a standard, the
> > practical impact is nil once you start questioning those POSIX
> > extensions that are supported by all of bash, ksh, dash, and busybox.

> I don't know what kind of importance a policy clause can have if it
> has "nil" practical impact.

I mean that the practical *benefit* of such strict enforcement is nil.  The
*impact* is that it would be a royal waste of developer time to make all
scripts compatible with a strict POSIX shell that isn't even optimal from a
size POV.

It's still useful to have a package which lets one practically test one's
scripts for POSIX compatibility, but it just doesn't make any sense to
enforce this level of strictness archive-wide.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: