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

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

Bruce Sass <bmsass@shaw.ca> writes:

> Hmmm, I guess I'm confused by Thomas's statement...

> "I refused to stop using test -a in my packages as well, and refused to
> declare #!/bin/bash."

> ...and the fact that dash, bash, and test, all document their binary -a 
> operator as having the same behaviour.

> Is their some Bourne style command interpreter other than dash in Debian 
> which offers to provide "sh"?

No, but Policy currently requires scripts that use features not available
from POSIX to declare an appropriate shell, and POSIX doesn't guarantee
the binary -a operator.

The reason why I started this whole thread was because every shell that
people use in practice as /bin/sh does support that operator, and I don't
think that we're realistically likely to get all the shell scripts in
Debian to change to not assume that when it doesn't cause problems in

Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: