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

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy (was: First draft of review of policy must usage)

On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 19:41 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Here's a proposed patch.  What do people think about this approach?  I
> know there was an inconclusive Policy discussion a while back about how
> best to deal with this issue.  As you can tell from this patch, I favor
> the approach of documenting the specific features that we require and
> assuming that their semantics are sufficiently clear in practice.

without respect to the "underspecification" mentioned by someone else,
i'd like to +1 the addition of the "local" requirement.  it's in fact
not just a nice addition but an essential one given that LSB-compatible
scripts among others silently assume this is already the case.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: