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

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

On Thu November 16 2006 18:23, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:40:20 -0700, Bruce Sass <bmsass@shaw.ca> said:
> > On Thu November 16 2006 11:06, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >> The problem is that "POSIX feature" is a meaningless term in this
> >> context.
> >
> > I see your point.
>         I don't, but really, I am not sure I ought tobe spending much
>  more time on an arcane reading of this corner case.

"POSIX feature" could be read as referring to only those features 
mentioned by POSIX, period. I don't think that is a reasonable 
interpretation because it implies that stuff like, say, debconf, is out 
since it is not mentioned by POSIX---but it is ambiguous.

>         The  issue, apparently, is that under policy, some shell can
>  come up with all kinds of shadowing of things like debconf.  I
>  suggest that if brought before the TC, the TC shall decide that is a
>  bug in the shell.  Policy is not supposed to be written to specify
>  all kinds of silly and deliberate malice  on the part of shell
>  authors.

Policy should be clear though.

> > The use of commands included in the spec must comply with the spec
> > of those commands.
>         O, good grief.  This is not Law 101.  This is the technical
>  policy all kinds of non native developers must read, understand, and
>  follow; arcane corner cases and increasingly complex language to
>  resolve corner cases just makes policy asinine, turgid, obfuscated,
>  and abstruse.

If packages can be tagged as RC buggy because of Policy violations then 
Policy is law.  Other than that, I agree.

- Bruce

Reply to: