Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy
Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> writes:
> Heck, I'm entirely happy with Manoj's suggestion to drop the whole damn
> thing, and simply say "/bin/sh will be bash."
Well, I'm not, and neither are a lot of other people judging from this
discussion.
> No. I'm saying that the existing noticed problem (test) is *better*
> solved by something other than a pseudo-solution. A good solution might
> be to say something like Manoj's solution, or *something* that does more
> than say "let's pretend that the words 'Posix-compatible' mean
> something!" Let's try and solve the problem, rather than push it under
> the rug and hope it doesn't come up *yet again*.
> Again you say? Well, we pushed it under the bed with echo, and now
> we're going to do that with test. How about we actually decide what we
> actually want?
I think the current Policy solution for echo is reasonable and minimal and
I would like to see a similar solution for test and local. I believe that
the rate of growth of such rules is reasonable and something that's
maintainable in Policy going forward.
I believe that trying to implement your approach would result in a mess,
and I don't believe it's more useful in practice.
I think we're down to irreconcilable differences here, so I'm going to
stop discussing this particular aspect of the thread further unless I can
think of something new to say. Right now, I'm just repeating myself for
the sake of saying that I still don't agree, and that quickly becomes
noise.
> Right now, we say "we want to make it possible to install any
> Posix-compatible shell as /bin/sh".
I do see your point here given the current wording, but I think this is a
minor wording tweak. The intention is not to say that pathological shells
that barely meet the requirements of POSIX are expected to work as
/bin/sh. I think I can rephrase this in a way to make that clearer so
that at least we can not argue about *that*.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: