Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy
On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 07:11:43AM +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> writes:
> IMPROVE QA
> All discussion about "policy has problems" is really due to lack of
> quality assurance work that prevents non-sh-compliant scripts to
> enter into the packaging in the first place. If people are sloppy or
> don't know how to comply with standard sh scripts,
You know, it is rather hard to comply to a standard you do not have a
copy of; POSIX costs money, and no trivial amount of it. We
kinda-learn what is in POSIX and what not by "common lore" that one
picks up as one goes or by reading other documents such as the SUS or
the bash/dash/... manual that more or less partially indicate what
feature they document is POSIX and which one is not.
Up to now, I've been surviving with SUS as a reference and the bash
manual for quick reference for things I know it says (e.g. is the
POSIX equality operator = or == ?). Not that I write that many
maintainer scripts, but still. In general, though, for all but the
most basic scripts, I have abandoned the idea of making /bin/sh
scripts and do /bin/bash scripts. I don't have to count anymore how
many times I have to escape nested backquotes, I had until very
recently with the GFDL debacle a manual I could easily refer to, ...
--
Lionel
Reply to: