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

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 09:06:05AM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 07:11:43AM +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> > Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> writes:
> > 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, ...

The SuSv3 is to be considered as POSIX these days, so it's available for
free (and even packaged in Debian...)

PS: The equality operator is =.

RegardS: David
 /) David Weinehall <tao@debian.org> /) Rime on my window           (\
//  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   //  Diamond-white roses of fire //
\)  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/    (/   Beautiful hoar-frost       (/

Reply to: