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

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 08:23 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Thomas Bushnell BSG (tb@becket.net) [061117 00:48]:
> > On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 20:51 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > > I can live with a list of features.  But then, geez, don't you think the
> > > > actual list should be given?  Saying "works on a Posix compatible shell"
> > > > restricts way too much (you can't use "debconf" then) unless we wink and
> > > 
> > > Could you just stop spreading this debconf example, it's utterly wrong.
> > 
> > Are you saying that Posix.2 limits what things a shell can make a
> > builtin?  Can you provide a reference?
> Totally irrelevant to the section we're discussing. But that has been
> told you before, and you continue to ignore it.

Repeating "no, you're wrong" without saying why, does not actually
advance the discussion at all.

What *are* you saying about the debconf example?  How can it be "utterly
wrong" when it's an example, not a thesis?  What is the thesis which is
"utterly wrong" here?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: