Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy
* Bill Allombert (allomber@math.u-bordeaux.fr) [061116 10:37]:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 09:44:55AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Thomas Bushnell BSG (tb@becket.net) [061116 09:35]:
> > > On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 09:30 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > > * Matthias.Beier.Gronau@gmx.de (Matthias.Beier.Gronau@gmx.de) [061115 18:31]:
> > > > > 1. /bin/sh can be a symbolic link to any shell.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think we allow to any shell - but there are more possibilities
> > > > than just /bin/bash.
> > >
> > > So can we just decide what the possibilities are and then put those in
> > > Policy and be done with it?
> >
> > No, because policy doesn't work that way.
> >
> > There is no reason to restrict us to a list of shells - there is a
> > reason to restrict us to a list of features.
>
> There is one big reason to restrict us to a list of shells, namely
> quality assurance. It is possible to check that scripts work when
> /bin/sh point to any shell mentionned in a list, but it is not possible
> to check reliably whether they follow a given specification.
Fair comment. I think it would be good if we do for QA reasons some
definition which shells we think follow that standard - that could be a
footnote in the policy, something in developers-reference, or anywhere
else.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
Reply to: