Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy
Bruce Sass <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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 (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>