Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two
Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> writes:
> On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 16:28 -0700, Bruce Sass wrote:
> > > > but it is Debian's job to be responsive to its users needs and
> > > > Debian has made a choice to strive for susv3 compatibility
> > >
> > > I don't think you understand what "compatibility" means in this
> > > context. It does not mean that you can substitute any component of
> > > the system with a different standards-compliant version and
> > > everything must continue to work.
> >
> > So, what does "compatibility" mean in this context?
>
> Debian has *achieved* susv3 compatibility. There is nothing more to be
> done.
>
> A compatible implementation is allowed to have special options "behind
> the scenes" which it uses to implement things. Compatibility (actually,
> I believe the term is compliance) refers to the entire system, not its
> individual components.
> >
> > > Our users needs do not, by and large, include embedded systems.
> >
> > I am glad that "by and large" is not the standard, for that would make
> > Debian somewhat less universal than it is.
>
> *Yawn*.
>
> I don't care about making a distribution suitable for every possible
> purpose. I see no shame in saying that we are suitable for some
> purposes and not others.
You don't have to care. There are people who do. Let them do the work.
That's how the Debian can come where it is now. It compiles in systems
where none other distro does because people have cared to make porting
work.
Porting from bash to dash to towards generic sh-SusV compliance is
similar work. We could even talk about "standards-compliant" init
scripts
I'm sure you're not against work towards overall generalism. You
should not care if someone puts effort on it. Any work of this kind
should be highly encouraged and not discouraged.
Jari
Reply to: