Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> I would rather get away from this wording totally.
> | "Shell scripts specifying /bin/sh as interpreter must only use POSIX
> | features, additionally, they may assume that echo -n .... . Also,
> | they may use test -a/o and the local directive in shell functions,
> | as long as .... If a shell script uses features beyond this set
> | listed, then 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). "
> This does specify what the scripts may expect, but drops all
> wording from this section regarding what the policy expectation of
> /bin/sh is.
Yeah, that was the direction I was going to try to go with my next
revision. Thank you! I'll probably nab that wording pretty much as-is
and try to put together a patch. (I've almost finished the PAM module
work that I needed to do, and in another day or two I should have a fix
for the libpam-openafs-session bugs that I need to go upgrade to RC.)
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>