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

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

Bruce Sass <bmsass@shaw.ca> writes:
> On Wed November 15 2006 16:45, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> 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.

> Since all sh's in Debian provide compatible binary -a operators, 
> #!/bin/sh is appropriate when that operator is used and Policy is not 
> being violated.  Ya?

I suppose you could read it that way, but I think that's strained.

    The standard shell interpreter /bin/sh can be a symbolic link to any
    POSIX compatible shell, if echo -n does not generate a newline.[59]
    Thus, shell scripts specifying /bin/sh as interpreter must only use
    POSIX features. If a script requires non-POSIX features from the shell
    interpreter, the appropriate shell must be specified in the first line
    of the script (e.g., #!/bin/bash) and the package must depend on the
    package providing the shell (unless the shell package is marked
    "Essential", as in the case of bash).

I'd rather make the situation clearer.

> I don't see why scripts would need to change. I can see how mention
> of -a in Policy could be considered as cruft, but it would serve to 
> identify -a as a requirement, in addition to POSIX, which any command 
> interperter in Debian purporting to be "sh" needs to abide by... is 
> that what you are trying to get clarified?


> Sorry, I got lost trying to follow all the diffs to Policy I've seen.

It's partly my fault because I need to generate a new diff for further
discussion and keep getting pulled away by other things.  I'll hopefully
be able to do that soon.

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

Reply to: