Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)
On Sat, 4 Oct 2014, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> If we were to decide that #309415 should be fixed in policy (and hence
> >> posh), then it should be done by requiring support for the obsolescent
The problems with posh and dash are also the sheer number of bugs
in corner cases, which the more actively developed shells fix.
posh inherited all bugs from pdksh which I fixed in mksh, partially
by rewriting the parser… so it had to be restarted from newer code.
dash, well, just ugh.
tglase@tglase:~ $ cat x
a='space divded argument
IFS=\ ; set -- $a
IFS= ; q="$*" ; nq=$*
printf '<%s>\n' "$*" $* "$q" "$nq"
[ "$q" = "$nq" ] && echo =true || echo =false
tglase@tglase:~ $ dash x
tglase@tglase:~ $ ksh93 x
> > It's already fixed:
> > * ‘test’, if implemented as a shell built-in, must support ‘-a’ and ‘-o’
> > as binary logical operators.
> Yeah, that's been there for a while. They were too widely used, so
> although they're really confusing, we decided not to pick that fight.
Yeah, but Md is an arsehole anyway and requires printf to be
a /bin/sh builtin instead of just adding /usr/bin to $PATH,
especially now that the initrd mounts /usr already anyway,
and CTTE decided to rather offend me than Md because he is
maintainer of the more important packages, or those where
it’s hard to find someone else for.
Yes, I hate users and I want them to suffer.
-- Marco d'Itri on gmane.linux.debian.devel.general