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

Re: Bug mass filling

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:05:09 +0200, Gabor Gombas <gombasg@sztaki.hu> said: 

> On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 10:48:26PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I don't think using any non-POSIX feature should be a policy
>> violation, probably.  There are some that are in such widespread
>> use and are supported by all shells that weren't written
>> specifically as test suites that I think it's worthwhile making an
>> exception for them.  But using general bash features in /bin/sh
>> scripts really do break real systems.

> How about instead of speaking about POSIX, policy should just list
> the shells that are officially supported as /bin/sh? There is no
> need listing every shell, just a representative subset: bash
> (obviously), dash (it's popular) and an other "minimalistic" shell
> (posh?) to prevent allowing everything & the kitchen sink if dash
> starts to rapidly acquire new features.

> If a maintainer script does not work with a shell on the list ->
> serious bug, if it does not work with some other shell -> wishlist
> bug.

        Policy is a slowly changing document, so it was deemed too
 much of a burden  for the list of shells to be maintained in policy;
 but I have no fundamental objections to this approach.

Refreshed by a brief blackout, I got to my feet and went next
door. Martin Amis, _Money_
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: