Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy
On Wed November 15 2006 16:45, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bruce Sass <bmsass@shaw.ca> writes:
> > Hmmm, I guess I'm confused by Thomas's statement...
> >
> > "I refused to stop using test -a in my packages as well, and
> > refused to declare #!/bin/bash."
> >
> > ...and the fact that dash, bash, and test, all document their
> > binary -a operator as having the same behaviour.
> >
> > Is their some Bourne style command interpreter other than dash in
> > Debian which offers to provide "sh"?
>
> No, but Policy currently requires scripts that use features not
> available from POSIX to declare an appropriate shell, and POSIX
> doesn't guarantee the binary -a operator.
Since all sh's in Debian provide compatible binary -a operators,
#!/bin/sh is appropriate when that operator is used and Policy is not
being violated. Ya?
> The reason why I started this whole thread was because every shell
> that people use in practice as /bin/sh does support that operator,
> and I don't think that we're realistically likely to get all the
> shell scripts in Debian to change to not assume that when it doesn't
> cause problems in practice.
I don't see why scripts would need to change. I can see how mention
of -a in Policy could be considered as cruft, but it would serve to
identify -a as a requirement, in addition to POSIX, which any command
interperter in Debian purporting to be "sh" needs to abide by... is
that what you are trying to get clarified?
Sorry, I got lost trying to follow all the diffs to Policy I've seen.
- Bruce
Reply to: