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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
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.