Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two
On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 10:02:14AM +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> Hubert Chan <email@example.com> writes:
> > On 23 Nov 2006 22:40:01 +0200, Jari Aalto <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> > > My point. If there is explicit "Depends: bash", then someone can post
> > > a patch to provide alternative solution to a person who may not know
> > > alternative constructs (having learned only bashism).
> > Sorry, but I don't understand what you're trying to do here. Can you
> > please explain what dependencies have to do with wishlist bugreports?
> "Depends:" make dependency visible, whereas filing a wishlist is
> usually result of someone by accident finding the script to include
> bashism. He may offer a patch to convert those constructs to standard
> It's easier to eyeball packages that explicitly announce "bash".
> Those could be put to a stress test through:
> If someone feels up to.
I don't really see the point. If the maintainer knows the package
contains bashisms, he might just as well fix them instead.
/) David Weinehall <email@example.com> /) Rime on my window (\
// ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ // Diamond-white roses of fire //
\) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Beautiful hoar-frost (/