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

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy



On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 02:23 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 
>         As I said before, this is not an exercise in debating, or
>  coming up with clever little corner cases where policy can be
>  gleefully misinterpreted.  If you really think that debian policy
>  means that maintainer scripts may not use debconf when it says you
>  should only rely on constructs blessed by POSIX as the least common
>  denominator, then you probably should not be allowed to create Debian
>  packages.

Stop insulting me, and stop calling me a liar.  I'm not debating for its
own sake, or trying to think up "clever little corner cases."

The proposed text does not tell me whether I can use non-POSIX arguments
in an invocation of "ls".  This is hardly a weird corner case.  

I always assumed that the existing policy does not prohibit the use of
non-POSIX arguments to "test", but then people started insisting it
does.  Since Posix treats "test" and "ls" exactly the same, I really
would like to know!

Thomas

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


Reply to: