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