Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 11:23:23AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> 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?
Well, let's hope people don't use any of the non-SuSv3 features of cat
in their shell scripts... ls and du aren't used in scripts (normally),
and only "normal" features of cp are used in scripts. As for grep,
yes, it would be nice to be able to use busybox grep. Busybox grep
isn't fully SuSv3 compliant though, it lacks the -x option.
Personally I wouldn't mind limiting init-scripts and scripts that are
parts of essential to use only SuSv3 compliant features. I think
rewriting *all* scripts to use only SuSv3 features would be too big of
an ordeal, but just fixing the initscripts, plus all scripts in
essential should be doable.
Regards: David
--
/) David Weinehall <tao@debian.org> /) Rime on my window (\
// ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ // Diamond-white roses of fire //
\) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Beautiful hoar-frost (/
Reply to: