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

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two

On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 13:50 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> I'm not suggesting to remove features from essential, but I think the
> policy should take the shells as special case, because the
> sh-compliances (SusV/POSIX) itself is a matter of its own. There are
> no viable alternative implementation of Perl which is in essential, likewise
> for the rest.

Why should shells be a special case and all the other things mentioned
by SusV/POSIX are not?  Why do we not want users to have the ability to
substitute a different ls, a different du, a different cp, a different
cat, a different grep?


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

Reply to: